Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

QueryOcc: Query-based Self-Supervision for 3D Semantic Occupancy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Direct 4D query supervision lifts self-supervised 3D occupancy by 26% over prior methods.

desk verdict Solid, well-ablated integration of query-based self-supervision into camera-only 3D occupancy, with a clean in-framework comparison against rendering supervision; the SOTA claim is plausible but needs code, variance, and a discussion of dynamic-object label noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.17221 v2 pith:KODD6HTK submitted 2025-11-21 cs.CV cs.RO

Adam Lilja , Ji Lan , Junsheng Fu , Lars Hammarstrand This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords 3Dsemanticoccupancyself-supervisedlearningquery-basedsupervisionspatio-temporalqueriescontractiveBEVrepresentationpredictionautonomousdrivingcamera-onlyperception
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

QueryOcc sets out to show that self-supervised 3D semantic occupancy — predicting what occupies each point in a scene and what it is — can be learned by supervising a continuous 4D space-time field directly, one query at a time, rather than through 2D rendering consistency or voxelized lidar grids. The paper argues this direct signal provides clearer geometric feedback than rendering-based supervision, and supports the claim with a 26% relative improvement in semantic RayIoU over the previous best camera-based method (23.6 vs 18.7) at real-time 11.6 FPS. The framework trains a query-based decoder on occupied and free queries sampled along rays from pseudo point clouds (built from an off-the-shelf depth model and vision-foundation semantic labels) or from raw lidar, using a contractive bird's-eye-view representation that keeps near-field detail while compressing the far field. A controlled comparison inside the same architecture shows query-based supervision (23.6 mRayIoU) clearly outperforms an image-space rendering alternative (15.0), which is the paper's central empirical claim.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 4D query q=(x,y,z,t): a point in space-time at which the model predicts occupancy and semantics. Supervision is generated by sampling, along rays from a sensor origin to observed points in pseudo or real point clouds, negative queries (free) between origin and point and positive queries (occupied) in a short buffer behind the point, balanced across frames; this yields sparse, continuous, discretization-free labels. To make long-range supervision affordable, QueryOcc uses a contractive BEV: an axis-aligned contraction maps coordinates beyond ±40 m into a fixed grid while preserving near-field resolution, and the 'lift-contract-splat' module lifts image features

What would settle it

Compare pseudo point clouds against lidar in the same frames and measure the fraction of occupied/free query labels that flip; if the label error concentrates on the small or thin classes that drive the 26% gain, part of the claimed advantage is an artifact of label noise. Alternatively, retrain the identical model with lidar as the only supervision source: if RayIoU drops below the pseudo-cloud number, the gain comes from dense pseudo-depth rather than from query supervision per se.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, QueryOcc's central discovery is that direct supervision of 4D spatio-temporal queries — asking the model whether a point at a given time is occupied and what it is — is a stronger and more scalable self-supervised training signal for 3D semantic occupancy than either NeRF/Gaussian-style rendering losses or voxelized lidar aggregation. The method samples positive queries just behind observed points and negative queries along the ray from the sensor to each point, across several adjacent frames, so occupancy and semantics are learned as explicit targets in continuous space rather than as by-products of image reconstruction. A contractive BEV representation (the 'lift-contract

Load-bearing premise

The camera-only headline numbers rest on the accuracy of the off-the-shelf monocular depth model used to build pseudo point clouds: if that metric depth is systematically biased relative to the evaluation geometry, the occupied/free query labels are wrong and the reported gain over rendering-based methods may not transfer to new scenes or sensors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, self-supervised occupancy training no longer needs 3D annotations or rendering losses at all: camera images plus an off-the-shelf depth model and semantic pseudo-labels suffice.
  • Because query supervision directly labels geometry, adding 2D rendering losses on top yields no further gain (23.3 vs 23.6 mRayIoU), so future pipelines can be simpler and faster.
  • The contractive representation lets a fixed BEV grid supervise unbounded scenes, so memory stays constant as range grows; this makes long-range occupancy prediction practical at real-time frame rates.
  • Performance improves monotonically with input resolution and with additional unlabeled datasets (about +2 RayIoU per added dataset), suggesting the method converts data quantity into accuracy without architectural changes.
  • The same framework handles camera-only, lidar-only, or combined supervision with one loss formulation, so a single model can train on heterogeneous sensor configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own Supp. Sec. 11 notes that continuous predictions are scored against 0.4 m voxelized ground truth that inflates geometry; if evaluation used a finer or continuous metric, QueryOcc's sharper thin-structure predictions might appear stronger than the table shows.
  • The camera-only result inherits the biases of the off-the-shelf monocular depth model; a natural test is to swap in different depth estimators or add temporal depth fusion and see whether the 26% gap widens or shrinks.
  • Because the paper attributes the gain to the supervision signal rather than the decoder, the query-based scheme could be transplanted into existing Gaussian-splatting or NeRF architectures to isolate whether direct query labels, not the contractive BEV, drive the improvement.
  • The positive-query buffer length and negative-ray sampling density are free parameters that the paper does not ablate; their optimal settings, especially under depth noise, remain an open engineering question.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QueryOcc, a self-supervised framework for continuous 3D semantic occupancy prediction from multi-view images. Instead of rendering-based 2D losses or voxelized lidar aggregation, it supervises a query-based decoder with 4D spatio-temporal queries sampled from pseudo point clouds (camera-only) or lidar. A contractive BEV representation and a lift-contract-splat module provide unbounded range at constant memory. On Occ3D-nuScenes, QueryOcc reports 23.6 semantic RayIoU (26% relative over GaussianFlowOcc's 18.7) at 11.6 FPS. Ablations compare query-based vs rendering supervision within the same framework and analyze temporal window, model components, resolution, sampling, and additional datasets.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a strong contribution: it provides a head-to-head demonstration that direct query-based 3D supervision outperforms rendering-based supervision in a matched framework, and it introduces a contractive BEV representation that extends LSS-style lifting to unbounded scenes. The lidar-supervised variant shows the framework is not dependent on pseudo-depth. The paper is unusually thorough on ablations (temporal window, resolution, sampling, supervision sources) and includes a candid discussion of continuous-vs-voxelized evaluation. These strengths make the central mechanism credible. However, load-bearing uncertainties remain around pseudo-depth robustness, temporal label noise, and lack of variance analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Table 1 / Fig. 6] The camera-only claim rests entirely on pseudo point clouds generated by Metric3D metric depth, with no confidence filtering or depth-error model for the camera-only variant. Since GaussianFlowOcc also uses Metric3D, the reported +26% semantic RayIoU could in part reflect how tightly QueryOcc fits Metric3D's specific error distribution rather than a genuinely better geometric representation. The lidar-only result (22.9 mRayIoU) substantially mitigates this concern and should be emphasized, but it does not validate the camera-only transfer to other scenes/sensors. Please add a pseudo-depth robustness study (e.g., perturbing Metric3D depth by realistic noise, or training with an alternative depth estimator) or explicitly qualify the camera-only SOTA as dependent on the current pseudo-depth model. This is load-bearing for the abstract's headline claim.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 '4D query generation' / Fig. 5] The temporal supervision transforms point clouds from adjacent frames using ego poses only; no object-motion compensation is described. For dynamic objects (cars, pedestrians, etc.), the transformed point positions in the reference frame are incorrect, so positive/negative queries can receive contradictory labels. The Limitations section does not acknowledge this source of label noise. The temporal-window ablation (Fig. 5) shows that longer windows improve performance, but it does not isolate or quantify this dynamic-object noise. Please specify how dynamic points are treated, add motion-compensation or filtering, or provide an ablation that separates static vs dynamic contribution. As temporal query supervision is a core contribution, this needs to be addressed.
  3. [Tables 1, 4, 5 / Figs. 5–8] All reported numbers are single training runs; no error bars, seed variance, or statistical significance is given. The 26% SOTA claim and some ablations (e.g., Table 4's marginal gains) could be affected by training variance. Please report mean±std over at least 3 seeds (or equivalent) for the main results and key ablations, and make the evaluation code/checkpoints available to support reproducibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 11] The discussion of continuous predictions vs voxelized GT is valuable. Since the improvement over baselines is also large on IoU (e.g., 55.0 vs 46.9 Occ. IoU), the abstract and conclusion should cite both metrics rather than only RayIoU, to avoid giving the impression that the headline metric was selected post hoc.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The contraction function is defined with \bar\kappa and the domain/coordinate normalization could be clearer; state explicitly that \bar\kappa = \kappa/K_hr for \kappa in {x,y}, and that K_hr and beta are hyperparameters.
  3. [Eq. (3)] Clarify whether the 'infinity bin' at 180 m is included in the set of depth bins used for the log-linear formula or handled separately.
  4. [Abstract / Sec. 2] The paper repeatedly calls the method 'self-supervised'; since Metric3D, Grounded-SAM, and DINOv3 are external pre-trained models, a short remark on the term's usage (e.g., 'foundation-model-supervised') would improve precision.
  5. [Table 1 caption] 'Colors indicate First, Second, Third in ranking among more similar methods' is vague; specify the grouping to make the ranking transparent.
  6. [Sec. 7 / Code availability] The text says 'open source code (upon publication)'; add a placeholder or anonymous link in the manuscript for review reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: supervision inputs are external and evaluation is benchmark-based; author self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation—4D query supervision from pseudo-point clouds (or lidar) produces continuous 3D semantic occupancy—does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Geometry labels are obtained by lifting pixels with the external Metric3D depth model and pairing them with external Grounded-SAM semantic pseudo-labels (Sec. 3.2–3.3); these are disclosed off-the-shelf inputs, not quantities fitted by QueryOcc or renamed as predictions. Eq. (5)–(6) generate negative/positive query labels directly from the point cloud along rays and behind points; this is label construction, not a derived result that is definitionally equal to the supervision. Evaluation is performed against the lidar-derived Occ3D-nuScenes voxel ground truth using RayIoU/IoU, so the reported gains are not a re-statement of the training targets. The only author-overlapping citations (GASP [23], NeuRAD [33]) are used for design details such as decoder offsets, min-depth filtering, and contraction inspiration; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems and do not carry the empirical claim. The strongest baseline shares Metric3D as a supervision source, which raises a correctness/transfer risk about pseudo-label accuracy, but that is not circularity; the lidar-only variant reaching 22.9 mRayIoU (Fig. 6) shows the framework is not merely fitting the pseudo-depth model. No load-bearing circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method adds representation components (contractive BEV, point encoder) but these are design choices, not postulates with independent evidence. The central claim depends on the listed hyperparameters and on the accuracy of external pseudo-depth, pseudo-labels, and VFM features.

free parameters (6)
  • Depth-bin schedule alpha = 0.3
    Balances near- and far-field depth bin spacing in Eq. 3; chosen by hand/validation.
  • Depth bin range d_near, d_far, infinity bin = 40 m, 100 m, 180 m
    Sets where log-linear bins operate and covers maximum sensor range.
  • BEV contraction K_hr and beta = 40, 0.8
    Control high-resolution region size and contraction ratio in Eq. 4.
  • Loss weights lambda_occ, lambda_sem, lambda_vfm, lambda_depth = 1.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5
    Weights for occupancy, semantic, VFM-feature, and depth losses in Eq. 7.
  • Positive-query buffer delta = not specified in main text
    Eq. 6 samples occupied queries inside a buffer of length delta behind each point; the value is not reported in the main text.
  • Supervision window and point sampling = 3 frames forward/backward; 30k points/frame
    Temporal window and point count determine the query distribution used for training.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Pseudo point clouds from Metric3D depth provide sufficiently accurate geometric supervision for occupancy.
    Sec. 3.2: camera-only pseudo point clouds are lifted using metric depth from Metric3D; if this depth is biased, the free/occupied labels are wrong.
  • domain assumption Grounded-SAM semantic pseudo-labels are accurate enough to supervise semantic occupancy.
    Sec. 3.3: Grounded-SAM provides semantic pseudo-labels for all main experiments.
  • domain assumption DINOv3 features can be distilled into the decoder and improve occupancy learning.
    Sec. 3.3 and Table 5: VFM feature distillation gives additional gains without a direct geometric target.
  • domain assumption Negative queries along the ray from sensor origin up to an observed point are unoccupied.
    Eq. 5 samples D- along the ray r in (0,1); assumes no unseen occluders between sensor and surface.
  • domain assumption Positive queries just behind an observed point are occupied.
    Eq. 6 samples D+ in a buffer behind the point; assumes the object occupies finite thickness behind the observed surface.
  • domain assumption RayIoU is a reliable and fair metric for semantic occupancy.
    Sec. 4.1 uses RayIoU as the headline metric; Sec. 11 argues it is better aligned with continuous predictions than voxel IoU.
  • domain assumption Occ3D-nuScenes lidar-derived ground truth is a valid evaluation reference despite voxelization artifacts.
    Sec. 4.1 uses Occ3D-nuScenes ground truth; Sec. 11 acknowledges the 0.4 m voxelization inflates surfaces.
  • domain assumption Known camera intrinsics/extrinsics and ego poses are available for lifting and 4D query generation.
    Sec. 3 assumes known calibrations and pairs adjacent frames with known ego poses.
  • domain assumption The contractive BEV representation preserves enough far-field spatial structure for supervision and reasoning.
    Eq. 4 compresses distant coordinates; Sec. 10 qualitatively argues long-range structure is retained, but no quantitative far-field benchmark is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QueryOcc: Query-based Self-Supervision for 3D Semantic Occupancy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KODD6HTK

@misc{pith2026251117221,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QueryOcc: Query-based Self-Supervision for 3D Semantic Occupancy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KODD6HTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.17221}
}
read the original abstract

Learning 3D scene geometry and semantics from images is a core challenge in computer vision and a key capability for autonomous driving. Since large-scale 3D annotation is prohibitively expensive, recent work explores self-supervised learning directly from sensor data without manual labels. Existing approaches either rely on 2D rendering consistency, where 3D structure emerges only implicitly, or on discretized voxel grids from accumulated lidar point clouds, limiting spatial precision and scalability. We introduce QueryOcc, a query-based self-supervised framework that learns continuous 3D semantic occupancy directly through independent 4D spatio-temporal queries sampled across adjacent frames. The framework supports supervision from either pseudo-point clouds derived from vision foundation models or raw lidar data. To enable long-range supervision and reasoning under constant memory, we introduce a contractive scene representation that preserves near-field detail while smoothly compressing distant regions. QueryOcc surpasses previous camera-based methods by 26% in semantic RayIoU on the self-supervised Occ3D-nuScenes benchmark while running at 11.6 FPS, demonstrating that direct 4D query supervision enables strong self-supervised occupancy learning. https://research.zenseact.com/publications/queryocc/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17221 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. QueryOcc learns to produce continuous 3D semantic occupancy from images through direct spatio-temporal query supervision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of QueryOcc. Multi-view camera images are encoded and lifted to BEV via our lift-contract-splat module, combining [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows an example of the learned contracted features. BEV feature processing Hζ (S): After splatting the features to BEV, we process the resulting feature map using a series of ResBlocks [2] and multi-scale deformable attention [44] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the self-supervised supervision process for a camera-only setup. Adjacent frames provide supervision through pseudo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of temporal window. Supervising across multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QueryOcc learns effectively from different point cloud sources. Combining both improves performance. 5 25 50 100 300 18 20 22 24 26 Sampled points (in thousands, log) mRayIoU RayIoU 10 15 20 Training time (h) Training time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effect of BEV cell size on RayIoU↑ metrics. Smaller cells leads to a notable improvements in performance, underscoring the need for an efficient, compact, and fine-grained BEV representation. In our framework the performance plateaus when using cell sizes smaller than …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scene A: Qualitative example from QueryOcc. The model reconstructs vehicle geometry with high fidelity (black boxes) and recovers small narrow structures such as road signs (white box). Semantic and occupancy predictions remain spatially consistent across camera views…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scene B: The motorcyclist is correctly identified (black box), while thin manmade poles are missed semantically despite partial occupancy signals (white box), illustrating the difficulty of extremely narrow structures. Broader scene elements such as sidewalk, terrain,…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scene C: Pedestrians (black boxes) are reconstructed with high consistency, including partially occluded instances. A fully occluded pedestrian behind a bus is missed (white box), though the model infers plausible surface continuation behind an occlusion. The predicte…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Scene D: Predictions beyond the Occ3D evaluation range. We visualize lifted features, BEV features, predictions, and ground truth, extending the view from the standard ±40 m to ±60m. The decoder reconstructs plausible geometry both inside the high-resolution region an…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Scene E: Geometric consistency in the contracted far-field. We again extend visualization to 60m range. The decoder recovers the bending road and surrounding free-space structure from the contracted region outside the high-resolution area (black dashed box), demonstra…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Implicit occupancy flow fields for perception and prediction in self-driving

    Ben Agro, Quinlan Sykora, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. Implicit occupancy flow fields for perception and prediction in self-driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1379–1388,

  2. [2]

    Uno: Unsupervised occupancy fields for perception and forecasting

    Ben Agro, Quinlan Sykora, Sergio Casas, Thomas Gilles, and Raquel Urtasun. Uno: Unsupervised occupancy fields for perception and forecasting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14487–14496, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  3. [3]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 5470–5479, 2022. 4

    2022

  4. [4]

    Gaus- sianflowocc: Sparse and weakly supervised occupancy estima- tion using gaussian splatting and temporal flow

    Simon Boeder, Fabian Gigengack, and Benjamin Risse. Gaus- sianflowocc: Sparse and weakly supervised occupancy estima- tion using gaussian splatting and temporal flow. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 24943–24954, 2025. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2025

  5. [5]

    Lan- gocc: Open vocabulary occupancy estimation via volume rendering

    Simon Boeder, Fabian Gigengack, and Benjamin Risse. Lan- gocc: Open vocabulary occupancy estimation via volume rendering. In2025 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 200–210. IEEE, 2025. 2, 6, 7, 3

    2025

  6. [6]

    Also: Automotive lidar self- supervision by occupancy estimation

    Alexandre Boulch, Corentin Sautier, Bj¨orn Michele, Gilles Puy, and Renaud Marlet. Also: Automotive lidar self- supervision by occupancy estimation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13455–13465, 2023. 3

    2023

  7. [7]

    nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Gi- ancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11621–11631, 2020. 1, 6, 8

    2020

  8. [8]

    Nuplan: A closed-loop ml- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles

    Holger Caesar, Juraj Kabzan, Kok Seang Tan, Whye Kit Fong, Eric M Wolff, Alex H Lang, Luke Fletcher, Oscar Beijbom, and Sammy Omari. Nuplan: A closed-loop ml- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles. InCVPR ADP3 workshop, 2021. 8

    2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Monoscene: Monocu- lar 3d semantic scene completion

    Anh-Quan Cao and Raoul De Charette. Monoscene: Monocu- lar 3d semantic scene completion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3991–4001, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    Navsim: Data-driven non-reactive autonomous vehicle simulation and benchmark- ing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 28706–28719, 2024

    Daniel Dauner, Marcel Hallgarten, Tianyu Li, Xinshuo Weng, Zhiyu Huang, Zetong Yang, Hongyang Li, Igor Gilitschenski, Boris Ivanovic, Marco Pavone, et al. Navsim: Data-driven non-reactive autonomous vehicle simulation and benchmark- ing.Advances in Neural Information Processin...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sdgocc: Semantic and depth-guided bird’s-eye view transformation for 3d multimodal occupancy prediction

    ZaiPeng Duan, ChenXu Dang, Xuzhong Hu, Pei An, Jun- feng Ding, Jie Zhan, YunBiao Xu, and Jie Ma. Sdgocc: Semantic and depth-guided bird’s-eye view transformation for 3d multimodal occupancy prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Panoptic nuscenes: A large-scale benchmark for lidar panop- tic segmentation and tracking.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):3795–3802, 2022

    Whye Kit Fong, Rohit Mohan, Juana Valeria Hurtado, Lubing Zhou, Holger Caesar, Oscar Beijbom, and Abhinav Valada. Panoptic nuscenes: A large-scale benchmark for lidar panop- tic segmentation and tracking.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):3795–3802, 2022. 1

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gaussianocc: Fully self-supervised and efficient 3d occupancy estimation with gaussian splatting

    Wanshui Gan, Fang Liu, Hongbin Xu, Ningkai Mo, and Naoto Yokoya. Gaussianocc: Fully self-supervised and efficient 3d occupancy estimation with gaussian splatting. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 28980–28990, 2025. 2, 6, 7

    2025

  6. [14]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 3, 6

    2016

  7. [15]

    Tri-perspective view for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction

    Yuanhui Huang, Wenzhao Zheng, Yunpeng Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Tri-perspective view for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 9223–9232, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    Selfocc: Self-supervised vision-based 3d occupancy prediction

    Yuanhui Huang, Wenzhao Zheng, Borui Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Selfocc: Self-supervised vision-based 3d occupancy prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 19946–19956, 2024. 1, 2, 6, 7, 3 9

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gaussianformer: Scene as gaussians for vision- based 3d semantic occupancy prediction

    Yuanhui Huang, Wenzhao Zheng, Yunpeng Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Gaussianformer: Scene as gaussians for vision- based 3d semantic occupancy prediction. InEuropean Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 376–393. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gaussianformer-2: Probabilistic gaussian superposition for efficient 3d occupancy prediction

    Yuanhui Huang, Amonnut Thammatadatrakoon, Wenzhao Zheng, Yunpeng Zhang, Dalong Du, and Jiwen Lu. Gaussianformer-2: Probabilistic gaussian superposition for efficient 3d occupancy prediction. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 27477–2...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Gausstr: Foundation model-aligned gaussian transformer for self-supervised 3d spatial understanding

    Haoyi Jiang, Liu Liu, Tianheng Cheng, Xinjie Wang, Tian- wei Lin, Zhizhong Su, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Gausstr: Foundation model-aligned gaussian transformer for self-supervised 3d spatial understanding. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Confer...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Bevformer: learning bird’s-eye-view representation from lidar-camera via spatiotemporal transformers.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    Zhiqi Li, Wenhai Wang, Hongyang Li, Enze Xie, Chong- hao Sima, Tong Lu, Qiao Yu, and Jifeng Dai. Bevformer: learning bird’s-eye-view representation from lidar-camera via spatiotemporal transformers.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Fully sparse 3d occupancy prediction

    Haisong Liu, Yang Chen, Haiguang Wang, Zetong Yang, Tianyu Li, Jia Zeng, Li Chen, Hongyang Li, and Limin Wang. Fully sparse 3d occupancy prediction. InEuropean Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 54–71. Springer, 2024. 6

    2024

  14. [22]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feicht- enhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11976–11986, 2022. 3, 6, 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    Gasp: Unifying geometric and semantic self-supervised pre-training for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15672,

    William Ljungbergh, Adam Lilja, Adam Tonderski Ling, Carl Lindstr¨om, Willem Verbeke, Junsheng Fu, Christoffer Pe- tersson, Lars Hammarstrand, Michael Felsberg, et al. Gasp: Unifying geometric and semantic self-supervised pre-training for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXi...

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Occdepth: A depth-aware method for 3d semantic scene completion

    Ruihang Miao, Weizhou Liu, Mingrui Chen, Zheng Gong, Weixin Xu, Chen Hu, and Shuchang Zhou. Occdepth: A depth-aware method for 3d semantic scene completion. arXiv:2302.13540, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis.Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis.Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d

    Jonah Philion and Sanja Fidler. Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 194–210. Springer, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  19. [27]

    Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159,

    Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kunchang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, et al. Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159,

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115(3):211–252, 2015

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, San- jeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115(3):211–252, 2015. 1

    2015

  21. [29]

    Grid-centric traffic scenario perception for autonomous driving: A comprehen- sive review.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2024

    Yining Shi, Kun Jiang, Jiusi Li, Zelin Qian, Junze Wen, Meng- meng Yang, Ke Wang, and Diange Yang. Grid-centric traffic scenario perception for autonomous driving: A comprehen- sive review.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2024. 1

    2024

  22. [30]

    Di- nov3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104, 2025

    Oriane Sim ´eoni, Huy V V o, Maximilian Seitzer, Federico Baldassarre, Maxime Oquab, Cijo Jose, Vasil Khalidov, Marc Szafraniec, Seungeun Yi, Micha¨el Ramamonjisoa, et al. Di- nov3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104, 2025. 6, 1

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Minkocc: Towards real-time label-efficient semantic occupancy predic- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02270, 2025

    Samuel Sze, Daniele De Martini, and Lars Kunze. Minkocc: Towards real-time label-efficient semantic occupancy predic- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02270, 2025. 2, 6

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for au- tonomous driving.Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 36:64318–64330, 2023

    Xiaoyu Tian, Tao Jiang, Longfei Yun, Yucheng Mao, Huitong Yang, Yue Wang, Yilun Wang, and Hang Zhao. Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for au- tonomous driving.Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 36:64318–64330, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  25. [33]

    Neurad: Neural rendering for autonomous driving

    Adam Tonderski, Carl Lindstr ¨om, Georg Hess, William Ljungbergh, Lennart Svensson, and Christoffer Petersson. Neurad: Neural rendering for autonomous driving. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14895–14904, 2024. 4

    2024

  26. [34]

    Pop-3d: Open-vocabulary 3d occupancy prediction from im- ages.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:50545–50557, 2023

    Antonin V obecky, Oriane Sim´eoni, David Hurych, Spyri- don Gidaris, Andrei Bursuc, Patrick P ´erez, and Josef Sivic. Pop-3d: Open-vocabulary 3d occupancy prediction from im- ages.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:50545–50557, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Letian Wang, Seung Wook Kim, Jiawei Yang, Cunjun Yu, Boris Ivanovic, Steven Waslander, Yue Wang, Sanja Fidler, Marco Pavone, and Peter Karkus. Distillnerf: Perceiving 3d scenes from single-glance images by distilling neural fields and foundation model features.Advances in Neur...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Openoccupancy: A large scale benchmark for sur- rounding semantic occupancy perception

    Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Wenbo Xu, Yunpeng Zhang, Yi Wei, Xu Chi, Yun Ye, Dalong Du, Jiwen Lu, and Xingang Wang. Openoccupancy: A large scale benchmark for sur- rounding semantic occupancy perception. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Surroundocc: Multi-camera 3d occupancy prediction for autonomous driving

    Yi Wei, Linqing Zhao, Wenzhao Zheng, Zheng Zhu, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Surroundocc: Multi-camera 3d occupancy prediction for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 21729–21740, 2023. 2

    2023

  30. [38]

    Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting

    Benjamin Wilson, William Qi, Tanmay Agarwal, John Lam- bert, Jagjeet Singh, Siddhesh Khandelwal, Bowen Pan, Rat- nesh Kumar, Andrew Hartnett, Jhony Kaesemodel Pontes, Deva Ramanan, Peter Carr, and James Hays. Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception an...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Sdformer: Vision-based 3d se- 10 mantic scene completion via sam-assisted dual-channel voxel transformer

    Yujie Xue, Huilong Pi, Jiapeng Zhang, Yunchuan Qin, Zhuo Tang, Kenli Li, and Ruihui Li. Sdformer: Vision-based 3d se- 10 mantic scene completion via sam-assisted dual-channel voxel transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 26...

    2025

  32. [40]

    Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image

    Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Hao Chen, Zhipeng Cai, Gang Yu, Kaix- uan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Chunhua Shen. Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9043–9053, 2023. 5

    2023

  33. [41]

    Occnerf: Self- supervised multi-camera occupancy prediction with neural radiance fields.CoRR, 2023

    Chubin Zhang, Juncheng Yan, Yi Wei, Jiaxin Li, Li Liu, Yansong Tang, Yueqi Duan, and Jiwen Lu. Occnerf: Self- supervised multi-camera occupancy prediction with neural radiance fields.CoRR, 2023. 2, 6, 7

    2023

  34. [42]

    A simple framework for open- vocabulary segmentation and detection

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Xueyan Zou, Shilong Liu, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, and Lei Zhang. A simple framework for open- vocabulary segmentation and detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1020–1031, 2023. 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Extract free dense labels from clip

    Chong Zhou, Chen Change Loy, and Bo Dai. Extract free dense labels from clip. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 696–712. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  36. [44]

    Deformable {detr}: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable {detr}: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 4 11 QueryOcc: Query-based Self-Supervision for 3D Semantic Occupan...

    2021

  37. [45]

    These classes are grouped intostaticanddynamiccategories ac- cording to their motion characteristics, as summarized in Tab

    Dataset details We follow prior work [ 4, 19] and focus on 15 semantic classes from the Panoptic nuScenes dataset [ 12]. These classes are grouped intostaticanddynamiccategories ac- cording to their motion characteristics, as summarized in Tab. 7. As Tab. 9 shows, the dataset ...

  38. [46]

    Experiment Details Image encoder:For the image encoder, we adopt ConvNeXt-Base [22] pretrained with DINOv3 [ 30]. As Tab. 8 shows, QueryOcc achieves strong performance across a broad range of backbones, including lightweight ResNets, pretrained on ImageNet [28], to larger Conv...

  39. [47]

    The goal is to test 2D supervision pipeline within the same archi- tecture and using identical supervision sources

    Rendering Supervision Details To compare image-space 2D supervision and 4D query- based supervision in the same framework, we implement a rendering-based baseline following neural rendering for- mulations adapted to occupancy prediction [ 16, 35]. The goal is to test 2D superv...

  40. [48]

    Additional Results This section describes additional experiments and results. 9.1. Class-wise metrics We observe similar trends as for RayIoU in the IoU metrics shown in Tab. 10. Drivable surface, sidewalk, and terrain achieve particularly high scores, suggesting that the mode...

  41. [49]

    10 to 12 and separate videos

    Qualitative examples We present qualitative examples from QueryOcc in Figs. 10 to 12 and separate videos. Overall, these examples show that QueryOcc produces sharp geometry, maintains fine-grained detail, and infers plausible structures behind occlusions. Scene A (Fig. 10):Veh...

  42. [50]

    Voxelized Ground Truth The qualitative examples reveal a systematic discrepancy between our predictions and the voxelized ground truth used in Occ3D

    Continuous Predictions vs. Voxelized Ground Truth The qualitative examples reveal a systematic discrepancy between our predictions and the voxelized ground truth used in Occ3D. The Occ3D ground truth is constructed by fusing multiple lidar sweeps into a fixed 0.4,m grid, which...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.