Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Robust 4D Driving Scene Reconstruction from Imperfect Visual Priors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 4D driving scenes can be reconstructed from imperfect video priors if the scene graph is allowed to self-correct its structure during optimization.

desk verdict A promising self-correcting framework for 4D driving reconstruction from noisy priors, with substantial reported gains — but the load-bearing semantic channel partition is unspecified, so the generalization claim rests on an unverifiable cue. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.12214 v2 pith:6EGBMZGV submitted 2026-07-07 cs.CV

Xiaoyun Dong , Qian Xu , Yun Wang , Yang Lu , Jen-Ming Wu , Jianping Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 4DreconstructionGaussianSceneGraphautonomousdrivingnoisypriorsself-correctionsemanticguidancedynamicdecompositionvideo-based
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

The paper confronts a bottleneck in autonomous-driving simulation: high-fidelity 4D reconstruction currently needs precise camera poses, LiDAR depth, and annotated agents, which are only available from routine, sensor-rich driving logs. The authors ask whether a Gaussian Scene Graph can be built purely from videos in the wild, where the off-the-shelf estimates of pose, depth, and object tracks are noisy. Their answer is Adaptive Gaussian Graph (AGG), a framework that uses the semantic features of a pretrained 2D vision model as a stable cue to separate static background from dynamic agents, and that lets the scene graph evolve—spawning, reassigning, or pruning agent nodes—while training. The effect, if the claim holds, is that reconstructing diverse internet and AI-generated driving videos becomes possible without manual annotation, and the paper reports that AGG beats existing methods by wide margins under noisy priors, e.g., 29.08 vs 27.14 full-image PSNR on KITTI.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Semantically-Guided Tick-Tock Strategy combined with Adaptive Topology Evolution. The Tick-Tock strategy alternates optimization between the static background plus camera pose (tick) and the dynamic agents (tock), using per-pixel attention maps computed from PCA-compressed features of a pretrained 2D foundation model; the feature channels are partitioned into a static set and a dynamic set. Adaptive Topology Evolution then scans for background Gaussians whose positional gradients are anomalously high and whose semantic similarity to agent prototypes is high, clusters them, and either reassigns them to an existing agent or—if the cluster persists across frames via

What would settle it

Compute the correlation between each PCA channel and ground-truth motion (or agent masks) on a new set of videos from a different distribution than KITTI—say, a different country, weather, or camera rig. If the channel subsets that separate static from dynamic on KITTI do not align with the subsets that separate them on Wild-30 or on a third domain, the fixed-partition assumption is falsified. A simpler variant: run AGG on Wild-30 with the channel partition randomly permuted; if many random partitions give similar results, the cue is not the partition itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the two well-known failure modes of Gaussian Scene Graphs under noisy priors—optimization ambiguity (pose errors leak into agent motion and background geometry) and topological rigidity (missed agents can never be recovered)—can both be rectified by the same semantic signal. AGG compresses features from a 2D foundation model via PCA, then routes gradients alternately to the static parts during a 'tick' phase and to the dynamic parts during a 'tock' phase, using attention masks derived from the PCA channels. On top of this, its Adaptive Topology Evolution detects missing agents by watching for anomalously high positional gradients on background Gaussians that coi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the fixed split of PCA-compressed visual feature channels into 'static' and 'dynamic' subsets is a stable, dataset-independent property of the foundation model's features; if that split is specific to the training distribution, AGG's in-the-wild generalization claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AGG removes the need for precise poses, LiDAR depth, and manual agent annotations in 4D driving reconstruction, making internet and generative videos viable data sources for diverse simulation.
  • Under noisy priors, AGG reports full-image PSNR 29.08 on KITTI versus 27.14 for the best previous method, and 30.14 versus 28.56 on the new Wild-30 benchmark.
  • Wild-30, a new benchmark of 30 internet and generative driving videos with auto-generated semantic masks, will be released to test robustness in unconstrained conditions.
  • Stress tests show AGG degrades only slightly when camera poses are perturbed by up to 1.0 meter, indicating its decoupled optimization absorbs large initialization errors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same semantic-priors-repair-geometric-priors principle may transfer to general monocular dynamic scene reconstruction from casual footage, wherever SLAM or VIO noise is the norm.
  • The hand-fixed partition of PCA feature channels into static and dynamic subsets is the most fragile piece; a learned or per-scene adapted partition would test whether AGG's generalization claim truly holds.
  • Because the topology evolution depends on thresholds for gradient magnitude, semantic similarity, and tracklet lifespan, a threshold-free anomaly detector would reveal how much of the robustness is intrinsic versus hand-tuned.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Adaptive Gaussian Graph (AGG), a 4D driving-scene reconstruction framework designed for inputs with imperfect visual priors (estimated camera poses, depth, and agent trajectories). The method's two main contributions are a Semantically-Guided Tick-Tock Strategy, which alternates optimization between static background/camera pose and dynamic agents using PCA-compressed DINOv3 channel attention maps, and an Adaptive Topology Evolution module, which spawns, reassigns, and prunes agent nodes based on gradient magnitude and semantic similarity to a prototype bank. The paper also introduces Wild-30, a benchmark of internet and generative driving videos. Experiments on KITTI and Wild-30 report substantial improvements over prior GSG methods under noisy priors (e.g., noisy KITTI full-image PSNR 29.08 vs. 27.14 for PVG; Wild-30 PSNR 30.14 vs. 28.56 for DeformGS).

Significance. If the results hold, AGG addresses a real bottleneck in scaling 4D reconstruction to unconstrained driving videos, where accurate sensors and annotations are unavailable. The paper's strengths include a new benchmark targeting an underrepresented setting, comparisons across a wide range of baselines, and ablations that isolate each proposed component. The self-correcting topology mechanism is a novel idea with clear practical value. However, the current manuscript leaves several load-bearing details unspecified, most notably the exact composition of the PCA channel subsets used for semantic attention. Because the reported gains are partly contingent on this choice, the reproducibility and generalization claims require further substantiation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The semantic attention mechanism depends on a fixed partition of PCA-compressed DINOv3 channels into C_bg and C_ag, but the paper never specifies how many channels are in each subset, which channel indices are used, the criterion for the split, or the dataset on which the PCA basis was fit. The text only asserts that 'certain PCA channels strongly activate on dynamic agents, while others reliably highlight the static environment' and that this is 'consistent across diverse driving scenes.' Since the ablation in Table 4 shows that removing semantic attention drops full-image PSNR from 29.08 to 27.15 (a drop comparable to the entire improvement over PVG in the noisy setting), this unspecified choice is load-bearing for the central robustness claim. Please provide the full channel assignment, the PCA fitting data, and a sensitivity analysis or cross-dataset validation demonstrating that the
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 3.3] The agent trajectory extraction and cross-frame association algorithms are deferred to the Appendix. The dynamic-object representation (Eqs. 1-2) and the Adaptive Topology Evolution module (Algorithm 1) rely fundamentally on the quality and details of these trajectory estimates. Without an exact algorithm description, the method is not reproducible and the comparison to baselines is not fully verifiable. The revision must include the appendix content with these details, or the main text must summarize the algorithms sufficiently.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Tables 1-2] All results are reported as point estimates with no error bars or multiple runs. In Setting A, AGG's NVS PSNR (28.99) is actually 0.06 dB below EMD (29.05), so the claim to 'state-of-the-art' relies on the other metrics. Given the stochastic nature of Gaussian-splatting optimization and the randomness in noisy prior estimation, run-to-run variation could affect the reported margins, especially for the more modest gains (e.g., 1.94 dB on noisy KITTI). Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds, or justify why a single run is representative.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] Several hyperparameters controlling the Adaptive Topology Evolution — τ_pos, τ_sem, DBSCAN (ε, min_samples), and τ_life — are fixed without a sensitivity analysis. The paper states that detailed discussions are in the Appendix, but no appendix is available. It is unclear whether these values were tuned once on KITTI and then fixed for Wild-30, or tuned per sequence. Since ATE is one of the three central contributions, the sensitivity of the method to these thresholds is directly relevant to the robustness claim. Please include a sensitivity study and state the selection procedure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The formulation of the attention map M_i(u) is typeset ambiguously; as written, it could be misread as a single fraction applied to the sum. Please add parentheses to clarify that the global normalization is applied per channel before summing.
  2. [Table captions] Several table captions contain 'T able' instead of 'Table' (e.g., Tables 1-4). Please correct the typos.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The KITTI evaluation uses 'the highly dynamic subset from [5,22,29]' but the specific sequences and frame counts are not given. Provide these details for reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 8] The attention map visualization lacks a legend or channel indices, making it difficult to interpret what the displayed maps represent. Consider annotating which PCA channels are used.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 3.2] The phrase 'zero-cost dense feature maps' is overstated unless the DINOv3 features are precomputed and stored; the current text could be read as implying per-iteration extraction at no cost. Please clarify the computational overhead.
  6. [References] Reference [20] (OpenAI Sora) is cited as a bare URL without a version or formal publication venue. If possible, cite a more specific technical report or provide the access date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the method's components are evaluated against held-out data and external priors, and the under-specified PCA channel partition is a reproducibility concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims do not reduce by construction to their inputs. The Semantically-Guided Tick-Tock Strategy uses DINOv3 features with a fixed partition of PCA channels into C_bg and C_ag (Sec. 3.2), but the partition is an empirical design choice external to the reconstruction objective; the resulting attention maps M_bg and M_ag are used to route gradients, and their contribution is tested by an ablation that removes semantic attention and reports a large PSNR drop (Table 4). This is a causal evaluation, not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The Adaptive Topology Evolution module uses photometric-loss gradients and a Cityscapes prototype bank (Sec. 3.3) to spawn, reassign, and prune nodes; the prototype bank is a fixed external semantic prior, and the spawning mechanism is triggered by measurable gradient and similarity thresholds. The optimization loss (Sec. 3.4) is a standard photometric term plus the semantic guidance term; it does not directly optimize the held-out PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS metrics reported in Tables 1-3. Wild-30 is a separately introduced benchmark with external internet/generative videos, and the paper evaluates against held-out frames, so no reported benchmark result is produced by construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; the use of the OmniRe codebase is an implementation baseline, not a justification of the paper's claims. The under-specified PCA channel partition and hyperparameter selection (Secs. 3.2, 4.2) are genuine reproducibility and generalization concerns that could affect whether the semantic decoupling transfers to Wild-30, but this is a risk about unstated tuning, not evidence that a prediction is equivalent to its input. Therefore the paper merits a non-circular score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces a software representation (AGG graph, modules) and a benchmark, but no new physical or natural entities. The central claim rests primarily on domain assumptions about the reliability of off-the-shelf priors and the universality of DINOv3 semantic features, plus a set of hand-chosen thresholds.

free parameters (7)
  • PCA channel partition C_bg/C_ag = not disclosed
    Fixed subsets of DINOv3 PCA channels used for semantic attention; selection criterion not specified (Sec. 3.2). Potential dataset-specific hand-tuning.
  • τ_pos = 5e-3
    Gradient-magnitude threshold for candidate missing-agent Gaussians in Algorithm 1 (Sec. 4.2).
  • τ_sem = 0.5
    Prototype cosine-similarity confidence threshold for semantic filtering (Sec. 3.3, 4.2).
  • DBSCAN (ε, min_samples) = 2.5, 25
    Spatial clustering of candidate Gaussians into instance clusters (Sec. 3.3, 4.2).
  • τ_life = 3 frames
    Minimum tracklet length before spawning a new agent node (Sec. 3.3, 4.2).
  • Learning rates (agent µ, pose translation, camera) = 1.6e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5
    Tick-tock uses larger agent learning rates than prior GSG methods (Sec. 4.2).
  • λ_sem, δ = 0.8, 1e-6
    Semantic loss weighting and epsilon in Eq. 3 (Sec. 4.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf 4D pointmaps/trajectories (MASt3R, VIPE, VGGT) provide initial camera poses and agent trajectories accurate enough that AGG's self-correction can converge.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.1 and 3.3, where the scene is initialized from estimated pointmaps and trajectories; failure of this premise (e.g., catastrophic drift) would defeat the method.
  • domain assumption DINOv3 PCA channels exhibit a consistent static/dynamic separation across diverse driving scenes, enabling a single fixed channel partition.
    Sec. 3.2 "We observe a consistent pattern across diverse driving scenes"; no formal argument or per-scene adaptation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Gradient magnitude ∥∇µL(g)∥2 above τpos is a reliable indicator of unmodeled dynamic content (missing agents) rather than texture boundaries or shadows.
    Sec. 3.3 uses this to seed candidate Gaussians; no analysis of false-positive sources beyond Kalman filtering of clusters.
  • domain assumption The Cityscapes prototype bank B generalizes to out-of-domain internet and generative videos.
    Sec. 3.3 "This bank offers stronger generalization than standard closed-set classifiers"; the appendix evaluation is not included in the preprint.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation of camera/agent poses between adjacent optimized frames is sufficient for novel-view synthesis on held-out frames.
    Sec. 4.2 "both camera and agent poses are linearly interpolated from adjacent optimized frames"; assumes smooth motion.
  • domain assumption SegFormer-produced semantic masks on Wild-30 are a valid proxy for dynamic-agent ground truth for evaluation.
    Sec. 4.1 "we use SegFormer to automatically generate semantic masks... The masks support fine-grained evaluation..."; auto masks may be imperfect, affecting agent-region metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust 4D Driving Scene Reconstruction from Imperfect Visual Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EGBMZGV

@misc{pith2026260712214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust 4D Driving Scene Reconstruction from Imperfect Visual Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EGBMZGV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.12214}
}
read the original abstract

Reconstructing 4D driving scenes in the wild (e.g., internet and AI-generated videos) is critical for diverse autonomous driving simulation. While recent Gaussian Scene Graph (GSG) methods achieve impressive visual quality, they heavily rely on precise priors, such as accurate camera poses and LiDAR depth, or manual annotations. When initialized with noisy priors estimated from in-the-wild videos, existing GSG methods suffer from optimization ambiguity (e.g., entangling camera and agent poses) and topological failures (e.g., missing objects), causing severe rendering artifacts. To enable robust in-the-wild reconstruction, we introduce Adaptive Gaussian Graph (AGG), a self-correcting 4D framework. Our Semantically-Guided Tick-Tock Strategy leverages 2D foundation features to explicitly decouple static background and camera pose updates from dynamic agent learning. Concurrently, our Adaptive Topology Evolution module actively rectifies graph structures by spawning missing agents, reassigning misclassified Gaussians, and pruning false positives. To rigorously evaluate this in-the-wild setting, we introduce Wild-30, a challenging benchmark of internet and generative videos. Extensive experiments on KITTI and Wild-30 validate that AGG consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in visual fidelity and robustness under noisy priors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reconstruction with noisy priors. (a) GSG with inaccurate camera/agent poses and missed agents: blurred background (blue box) and missing objects (red box). (b) AGG decouples pose/background from agent learning and updates graph topology (spawn/reassign/prune), recovering agents and improving background sharpness. miss crucial but infrequent corner cases [7,11,19]. Consequently, this strict data dependency creates a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our AGG framework. Initialized from noisy off-the-shelf pri￾ors, AGG optimizes the scene via a Semantically-Guided Tick-Tock Strategy that decouples the gradient flow between static (Tick) and dynamic (Tock) phases using foundation model features. Concurrently, the Adaptive Topology Evolution module continuously rectifies topology errors by explicitly spawning missing agents, reassign￾ing mismatched Gaus… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Wild-30 benchmark. Wild-30 features internet videos and generative videos with extreme weather (e.g., snowy) and diverse geographic locations. Auto￾annotated semantic masks (right) enable agents evaluation. L = Lphoto + Lsem. This minimalist objective facilitates 4D reconstruction in￾the-wild scenarios. Triggering mechanisms for tick-tock strategy and topology evolution, along with specific parameter settings, a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons on the KITTI dataset under noisy priors. Please refer to the appendix for more visualization. Performance on KITTI. Tab. 1 reports results under two initialization con￾ditions. Under the ideal setting with ground-truth inputs, AGG establishes it…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on the Wild-30 dataset under noisy priors. Please refer to the appendix for more visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Robustness against pose noise. AGG exhibits minimal performance drop even under severe 1.0-meter perturbations, highlighting the strong self-correction ca￾pability of our overall framework. Tick-Tock Strategy. Disabling the Tick-Tock strategy causes a significant per￾f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative ablation study results from the KITTI dataset (a) Input (b) Static Attention (Cbg) (c) Dynamic Attention (Cag) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics2(4), 433–459 (2010) 6

    Abdi, H., Williams, L.J.: Principal component analysis. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics2(4), 433–459 (2010) 6

    2010

  2. [2]

    In: CVPR (2025) 2, 4

    Cabon, Y., Stoffl, L., Antsfeld, L., Csurka, G., Chidlovskii, B., Revaud, J., Leroy, V.: Must3r: Multi-view network for stereo 3d reconstruction. In: CVPR (2025) 2, 4

    2025

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition

    Chen, Y., Rong, F., Duggal, S., Wang, S., Yan, X., Manivasagam, S., Xue, S., Yumer, E., Urtasun, R.: Geosim: Realistic video simulation via geometry-aware composition for self-driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition. pp. 7230–7240 (2021) 1

    2021

  4. [4]

    International Journal of Computer Vision134(3), 83 (2026) 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14

    Chen, Y., Gu, C., Jiang, J., Zhu, X., Zhang, L.: Periodic vibration gaussian: Dy- namic urban scene reconstruction and real-time rendering. International Journal of Computer Vision134(3), 83 (2026) 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14

    2026

  5. [5]

    In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2025) 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14

    Chen, Z., Yang, J., Huang, J., de Lutio, R., Esturo, J.M., Ivanovic, B., Litany, O., Gojcic, Z., Fidler, S., Pavone, M., Song, L., Wang, Y.: Omnire: Omni urban scene reconstruction. In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2025) 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14

    2025

  6. [6]

    In: Proc

    Cordts, M., Omran, M., Ramos, S., Rehfeld, T., Enzweiler, M., Benenson, R., Franke, U., Roth, S., Schiele, B.: The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In: Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016) 7, 9

    2016

  7. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems24(7), 6971–6988 (2023).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TITS.2023.32593222

    Ding, W., Xu, C., Arief, M., Lin, H., Li, B., Zhao, D.: A survey on safety-critical driving scenario generation—a methodological perspective. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems24(7), 6971–6988 (2023).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TITS.2023.32593222

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    1115/1.4031728,https://doi.org/10.1115/1.40317285

    Ding, X., Chen, H.: Dynamic modeling and locomotion control for quadruped robots based on center of inertia on SE(3)138(1), 011004.https://doi.org/10. 1115/1.4031728,https://doi.org/10.1115/1.40317285

    work page doi:10.1115/1.40317285

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR) (2012) 9

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Urtasun, R.: Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR) (2012) 9

    2012

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04988 (2023) 10, 11

    Guo, J., Deng, N., Li, X., Bai, Y., Shi, B., Wang, C., Ding, C., Wang, D., Li, Y.: Streetsurf: Extending multi-view implicit surface reconstruction to street views. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04988 (2023) 10, 11

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    1186/s42467-023-00015-y2

    Heidecker, F., Bieshaar, M., Sick, B.: Corner cases in machine learning processes 6(1), 1.https://doi.org/10.1186/s42467-023-00015-y,https://doi.org/10. 1186/s42467-023-00015-y2

    doi

  4. [12]

    In: CVPR (2025) 2, 4

    Hu, W., Gao, X., Li, X., Zhao, S., Cun, X., Zhang, Y., Quan, L., Shan, Y.: Depthcrafter: Generating consistent long depth sequences for open-world videos. In: CVPR (2025) 2, 4

    2025

  5. [13]

    Hu, Y., Cheng, C., Yu, S., Guo, X., Wang, H.: (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2511.199712, 4

    2025

  6. [14]

    In: NVIDIA Research Whitepapers arXiv:2508.10934 (2025) 2, 4, 5

    Huang, J., Zhou, Q., Rabeti, H., Korovko, A., Ling, H., Ren, X., Shen, T., Gao, J., Slepichev, D., Lin, C.H., Ren, J., Xie, K., Biswas, J., Leal-Taixe, L., Fidler, S.: Vipe: Video pose engine for 3d geometric perception. In: NVIDIA Research Whitepapers arXiv:2508.10934 (2025) 2, 4, 5

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2026) 1, 3 16 Dong et al

    Huang, N., Wei, X., Zheng, W., An, P., Lu, M., Zhan, W., Tomizuka, M., Keutzer, K., Zhang, S.: S3gaussian: Self-supervised street gaussians for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2026) 1, 3 16 Dong et al

    2026

  8. [16]

    Trans- actions of the ASME–Journal of Basic Engineering82(Series D), 35–45 (1960) 8

    Kalman, R.E.: A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans- actions of the ASME–Journal of Basic Engineering82(Series D), 35–45 (1960) 8

    1960

  9. [17]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics42(4) (July 2023),https://repo-sam.inria.fr/fungraph/3d-gaussian-splatting/3, 5, 8, 10, 11

    Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkühler, T., Drettakis, G.: 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics42(4) (July 2023),https://repo-sam.inria.fr/fungraph/3d-gaussian-splatting/3, 5, 8, 10, 11

    2023

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025) 9

    Kerssies, T., Cavagnero, N., Hermans, A., Norouzi, N., Averta, G., Leibe, B., Dubbelman, G., de Geus, D.: Your ViT is Secretly an Image Segmentation Model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025) 9

    2025

  11. [19]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Li, K., Chen, K., Wang, H., Hong, L., Ye, C., Han, J., Chen, Y., Zhang, W., Xu, C., Yeung, D.Y., et al.: Coda: A real-world road corner case dataset for object detection in autonomous driving. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 406–423. Springer (2022) 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    OpenAI: Sora: Creating video from text (2026),https://openai.com/sora3, 9

    2026

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Ost, J., Mannan, F., Thuerey, N., Knodt, J., Heide, F.: Neural scene graphs for dynamic scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 2856–2865 (June 2021) 1, 3, 10, 11

    2021

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Peng, C., Zhang, C., Wang, Y., Xu, C., Xie, Y., Zheng, W., Keutzer, K., Tomizuka, M., Zhan, W.: Desire-gs: 4d street gaussians for static-dynamic decomposition and surface reconstruction for urban driving scenes. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition C...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Siméoni, O., Vo, H.V., Seitzer, M., Baldassarre, F., Oquab, M., Jose, C., Khalidov, V., Szafraniec, M., Yi, S., Ramamonjisoa, M., Massa, F., Haziza, D., Wehrstedt, L., Wang, J., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Sentana, L., Roberts, C., Vedaldi, A., Tolan, J., Brandt, J., Couprie, ...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2020) 9

    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., Anguelov, D.: Scalab...

    2020

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Tancik, M., Casser, V., Yan, X., Pradhan, S., Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Barron, J.T., Kretzschmar, H.: Block-nerf: Scalable large scene neural view synthe- sis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8248–8258 (2022) 3

    2022

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Turki, H., Zhang, J.Y., Ferroni, F., Ramanan, D.: Suds: Scalable urban dynamic scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 12375–12385 (2023) 10

    2023

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025) 2, 4

    Wang, J., Chen, M., Karaev, N., Vedaldi, A., Rupprecht, C., Novotny, D.: Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025) 2, 4

    2025

  20. [28]

    IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004) 10

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004) 10

    2004

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Wei, X., Wuwu, Q., Zhao, Z., Wu, Z., Huang, N., Lu, M., Ma, N., Zhang, S.: Emd: Explicit motion modeling for high-quality street gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 28462–28472 (2025) 1, 3, 9, 10, 11 Robust 4D Dr...

    2025

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Xian, W., Huang, J.B., Kopf, J., Kim, C.: Space-time neural irradiance fields for free-viewpoint video. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9421–9431 (2021) 10

    2021

  23. [31]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023) 3, 10

    Xie, Z., Zhang, J., Li, W., Zhang, F., Zhang, L.: S-nerf: Neural radiance fields for street views. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023) 3, 10

    2023

  24. [32]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03830,http://arxiv.org/abs/2402

    Yan, G., Pi, J., Guo, J., Luo, Z., Dou, M., Deng, N., Huang, Q., Fu, D., Wen, L., Cai, P., Gao, X., Cai, X., Zhang, B., Yang, X., Bai, Y., Zhou, H., Shi, B.: OASim: An open and adaptive simulator based on neural rendering for autonomous driving. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv....

    doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    In: ECCV (2024) 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 14

    Yan, Y., Lin, H., Zhou, C., Wang, W., Sun, H., Zhan, K., Lang, X., Zhou, X., Peng, S.: Street gaussians: Modeling dynamic urban scenes with gaussian splatting. In: ECCV (2024) 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 14

    2024

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02077 (2023) 3, 10, 11

    Yang, J., Ivanovic, B., Litany, O., Weng, X., Kim, S.W., Li, B., Che, T., Xu, D., Fidler, S., Pavone, M., et al.: Emernerf: Emergent spatial-temporal scene decom- position via self-supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02077 (2023) 3, 10, 11

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    In: 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Yang,Z.,Chen,Y.,Wang,J.,Manivasagam,S.,Ma,W.C.,Yang,A.J.,Urtasun,R.: UniSim: A neural closed-loop sensor simulator. In: 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 1389–1399. IEEE.https: //doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00140,https://ieeexpl...

    2023

  28. [36]

    In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Yang, Z., Gao, X., Zhou, W., Jiao, S., Zhang, Y., Jin, X.: Deformable 3d gaussians for high-fidelity monocular dynamic scene reconstruction. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 20331– 20341 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR5273...

    2024

  29. [37]

    YouTube: Youtube (2026),https://www.youtube.com/3, 9

    2026

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 586–595 (2018) 10

    2018

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01718 (2024) 1, 3, 7

    Zhou, H., Lin, L., Wang, J., Lu, Y., Bai, D., Liu, B., Wang, Y., Geiger, A., Liao, Y.: Hugsim: A real-time, photo-realistic and closed-loop simulator for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01718 (2024) 1, 3, 7

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Zhou, H., Shao, J., Xu, L., Bai, D., Qiu, W., Liu, B., Wang, Y., Geiger, A., Liao, Y.: Hugs: Holistic urban 3d scene understanding via gaussian splatting. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 21336–21345 (June 2024) 7

    2024

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhou, X., Lin, Z., Shan, X., Wang, Y., Sun, D., Yang, M.H.: Drivinggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic autonomous driving scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 21634–21643 (2024) 1, 3

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.