Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 44 references

Diffusion-Based Generative Models for 3D Occupancy Prediction in Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Conditional discrete diffusion over voxel labels outperforms direct discriminative mapping for camera-based 3D occupancy prediction.

desk verdict Useful design study, but the headline 'diffusion beats discriminative' is not established because the best comparisons don't control for backbone fine-tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23115 v2 pith:HIMM2QKR submitted 2025-05-29 cs.CV

Yunshen Wang , Yicheng Liu , Tianyuan Yuan , Yingshi Liang , Xiuyu Yang , Honggang Zhang , Hang Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DoccupancypredictiondiffusionmodelsautonomousdrivinggenerativeperceptionconditionalsamplingBEVrepresentationsplanningdiscrete
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 is trying to establish that camera-based 3D occupancy prediction for autonomous driving is better cast as conditional generative modeling than as a direct image-to-occupancy mapping. It proposes DiffOcc, a discrete diffusion denoiser that takes bird's-eye-view features from an existing BEV encoder and refines occupancy grids through iterative denoising, trained end-to-end. On the Occ3D-nuScenes benchmark, DiffOcc reaches 42.67 mIoU with a BEVFormer backbone and 43.08 with a PanoOcc backbone, improvements of 7.05 and about one point over the discriminative baselines. The largest gains appear in camera-invisible, occluded, and long-range voxels, and the predicted occupancy supports planning with lower average L2 error and collision rate than the ground-truth annotations when no visible mask is used. If this is right, the practical consequence is that a generative head can be added to existing BEV perception stacks to get denser, more coherent occupancy that is also better for downstream decision-making.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a discrete categorical diffusion process over voxel occupancy labels. A uniform transition matrix gradually corrupts the discrete label grid, and a U-Net denoiser, adapted from a point-cloud segmentation network, is trained to predict the clean label map $x_0$; conditioning is provided by the features immediately before the final classifier of a BEV encoder, which enables end-to-end training of encoder and denoiser. During sampling, classifier-free guidance with scale 3.5 sharpens the condition, and 10 to 15 denoising steps are used at inference. The paper compares three occupancy representations—spatial latent, triplane, and discrete categorical variables—and reports that the discrete categorical representation gives the best mIoU, so it is chosen as the operating representation. This machinery is what carries the claimed gains: the BEV encoder runs once to supply a condition, and the iterative denoiser refines that condition into a coherent occupancy grid.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a subset of Occ3D-nuScenes scenes with fresh dense ground truth (for example, high-resolution LiDAR or human-labeled voxel geometry) and recompute mIoU restricted to voxels where the original label is empty but DiffOcc predicts occupied; if the extra predicted geometry fails to match the fresh labels, the reported accuracy and planning advantages would not transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a discrete diffusion model conditioned on the pre-classifier representations of a BEV encoder produces occupancy predictions that are more accurate, more noise-robust, and more useful for planning than the one-shot predictions of the same encoder. The paper shows this with consistent experiments: under the standard LiDAR-mask evaluation, DiffOcc raises mIoU from 35.62 to 42.67 on a re-implemented BEVFormer and from 42.15 to 43.08 on PanoOcc. In camera-invisible regions the improvement is larger, from 21.42 and 30.13 to 36.45 and 36.83 mIoU, and in low-visibility voxels the model maintains a similar edge. In a planning probe built on a standard planning module, occupancy from DiffOcc trained without a visible mask achieves 2.87 m average L2 error and 3.16 percent collision rate, below the 2.95 m and 3.76 percent obtained with ground-truth occupancy. The authors interpret these results as evidence that generative modeling injects a 3D scene prior, tolerates noisy labels through its denoising objective, and captures multimodal occupancy distributions that discriminative models cannot express.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that point-cloud-derived ground-truth occupancy labels are incomplete and noisy, so a model's denser predictions, such as complete drivable surfaces, are scored as better even when they contain geometry absent from the labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A diffusion head can be plugged onto existing BEV occupancy encoders without changing their architecture, improving accuracy by several mIoU points.
  • Occupancy predictions in camera-invisible regions improve substantially, so the model is completing geometry that is never directly observed rather than only refining visible voxels.
  • Few-step inference with one or two sampling steps retains most of the gain, so the generative head can trade computation for quality in latency-critical settings.
  • Denser, coherent occupancy from the generative model supports planning better than ground-truth labels built from sparse LiDAR, at least under the paper's planner evaluation.
  • End-to-end training with pre-classifier BEV features outperforms conditioning on predictions or logits, so the condition should be a trained representation, not the output.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: part of the mIoU gain may be an artifact of the label-generation process, since point-cloud-derived labels omit complete surfaces; a denser label protocol could shrink or reverse the reported advantage.
  • Editorial extension: because the planner can beat ground-truth occupancy, safety analysis should test whether completed geometry is physically faithful in regions never observed, using new sensor sweeps or human annotation.
  • Editorial extension: the model's multimodality could be exploited by sampling several occupancy hypotheses and planning robustly against the set, a use the paper mentions conceptually but does not evaluate.
  • Editorial extension: the same conditioned-discrete-diffusion recipe could transfer to other BEV prediction tasks, such as semantic map layout or object detection, wherever the output is categorical and spatially structured.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DiffOcc, a framework that adds a diffusion denoiser to a BEV-based visual encoder for 3D occupancy prediction. It compares three occupancy representations (spatial latent, triplane, discrete categorical), two guidance techniques (CFG and CG), and three condition types, selecting discrete categorical diffusion with CFG and pre-classifier BEV features (C-R) as the final configuration. Experiments on Occ3D-nuScenes report 42.67 mIoU with a BEVFormer* backbone and 43.08 mIoU with a PanoOcc backbone, alongside analyses of camera-invisible regions, noisy/long-range regions, inference step counts, and a downstream planning evaluation. The central claim is that diffusion-based generative models outperform state-of-the-art discriminative approaches and yield more realistic, consistent, and multimodal occupancy predictions.

Significance. If the empirical claim were established, the paper would provide a valuable demonstration that conditional diffusion is a viable and competitive formulation for 3D occupancy prediction. The systematic ablation of representations, guidance methods, and condition types is informative, and the exploration of properties such as 3D scene priors, noise robustness, multi-modality, and dynamic inference steps is a useful organizing framework. However, the central comparison is not yet controlled: the baseline rows are published checkpoints or re-implementations trained under different protocols, the headline gain over PanoOcc is only 0.93 mIoU, no error bars or held-out test results are reported, and the most relevant generative baseline, OccGen, is absent. With controlled fine-tuning baselines and uncertainty quantification, this paper could make a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.E, Table IV] The central claim rests on the comparisons in Table IV, but the C-R condition in Section III.E explicitly "allows for end-to-end training of both the visual encoder and the diffusion model." The baseline rows "PanoOcc [19]" and "BEVFormer*" are not retrained under the same end-to-end protocol; they are published checkpoints or a re-implementation with its own recipe. The 0.93 mIoU gain over PanoOcc and the 7.05 mIoU gain over BEVFormer* could therefore come entirely from additional backbone fine-tuning under the occupancy objective rather than from the diffusion denoiser. Please add a discriminative control: train the same visual encoder with a single-step discriminative occupancy head under identical training iterations, data augmentation, loss weighting, and inference resolution, and report both mIoU and computational cost. Without this control, the headline claim that diffusion "outperforms" discriminative approaches is not established.
  2. [Section V-A, Tables I-III, Table IX] The final configuration is selected on the same Occ3D-nuScenes validation set used for the headline numbers in Table IV: the representation is chosen in Table I, the CFG scale in Table II, the condition type in Table III, and the inference step count in Table IX. There is no held-out split, no test-server evaluation, and no repeated-seed variance. The PanoOcc margin of 0.93 mIoU is small relative to typical run-to-run variation for such models. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds and provide a result on the Occ3D test set, or otherwise demonstrate that validation-based selection does not drive the reported gains.
  3. [Section V-F, Fig. 5] Table VIII reports that DiffOcc, trained without visible masks, beats ground-truth occupancy annotations on planning metrics. This conclusion assumes that the additional predicted geometry, such as "complete drivable surfaces" in Fig. 5, is faithful scene completion rather than hallucination. The Discussion's response to the hallucination concern is circular: it cites the mIoU and planning improvements as evidence that hallucination is not harmful. Please provide a direct geometric fidelity measure against LiDAR returns not used to build the labels (for example, F1 or Chamfer distance against a held-out sweep) and/or evaluate the planner in a closed-loop or simulator setting. Absent that, the planning result does not safely support the claim that the predicted occupancy is more informative than ground truth.
  4. [Section VI, Table IV] The paper identifies OccGen [44] as the most relevant prior work but never benchmarks it in Table IV or anywhere else. Since OccGen is also a diffusion-based occupancy prediction method, its absence leaves the broader claim "diffusion-based generative models outperform state-of-the-art" (abstract) unverified against the closest competitor. Please include OccGen in the comparison table, together with its reported variance if available.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Table IV footnote] The footnote contains a typo: "nuScense" should be "nuScenes."
  2. [Section III.C] The attribution "as introduced by Nichol and Dhariwal [12]" is incorrect: reference [12] is Sohl-Dickstein et al. The uniform-transition categorical diffusion used here is introduced in references [6] and [7]. Please correct the citation.
  3. [Section V.A, Eq. (3)] Please specify the exact transition matrix used in Eq. (3) (uniform or absorbing) and the number of diffusion steps used during training, since Table IX reports a sharp performance drop when the number of inference steps is increased to 50.
  4. [Table IV] Please clarify why the published BEVFormer [11] row is 22.36 mIoU while the re-implemented BEVFormer* row is 35.62 mIoU; provide the training details of the re-implementation so readers can assess whether the two rows are directly comparable.
  5. [Section V-C] Please define precisely how "camera-invisible regions" are computed from the Occ3D-nuScenes labels and report the number of voxels in that subset; the current definition is too vague to interpret the 6-7 mIoU gains in Table V.
  6. [Table IX, Section VII] Please include wall-clock latency or FLOPs per inference step in Table IX, since the conclusion's discussion of inference latency depends on an explicit cost-quality trade-off that the current table does not provide.
  7. [Fig. 5] Please label the panels of Fig. 5 as ground truth versus prediction and specify whether a visible mask is applied; the qualitative claim about denser and more coherent predictions would also be stronger with a LiDAR overlay from a sweep not used to construct the labels.
  8. [Whole paper] No code or trained models are provided; because the re-implementation and fine-tuning details are central to the claims, please release code and checkpoints, or provide complete hyperparameter and training-protocol details in a supplement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark comparison; the C-R end-to-end training confound is a fairness issue, not a construction-level circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: diffusion-based generative models outperform discriminative baselines on the Occ3D-nuScenes validation set, supported by Table IV and related experiments. No derivation chain equates a predicted quantity to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The C-R condition uses representations before the final classifier layers and enables end-to-end training of the visual encoder and diffusion model, which makes the comparison against published PanoOcc/BEVFormer checkpoints potentially unfair, but that is an experimental confound, not circularity: the reported mIoU is not logically forced by the definition of the condition or by the equations. The only self-citation is the Occ3D benchmark [3], which is used as a fixed external evaluation dataset rather than as a load-bearing theoretical premise. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The planning experiment where DiffOcc beats ground-truth occupancy reflects the paper's stated assumption that point-cloud-derived labels are incomplete; that assumption may be unsafe, but it is an empirical and safety concern, not a circular derivation. Therefore the paper is self-contained against an external benchmark and receives score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no invented entities. The hand-picked hyperparameters (CFG scale 3.5, 10 inference steps, condition type C-R) are validated against the same benchmark used for final results. The main domain assumption is that noisy, incomplete point-cloud labels justify treating denser model output as superior.

free parameters (3)
  • CFG guidance scale = 3.5
    Selected as the best value from Table II, which tests scales 0.5 to 3.5, and used for all main results.
  • Number of inference steps = 10
    Selected from Table IX, where performance peaks around 10 to 15 steps.
  • Condition type = C-R
    Chosen from Table III after comparing predictions, logits, and pre-classifier representations; C-R allows end-to-end training.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth occupancy labels are imperfect and may be treated as noisy or incomplete; models producing denser predictions than labels are judged favorably.
    Invoked in Fig. 5 and Sec. V-F to support the claim that DiffOcc can beat ground-truth occupancy in planning.
  • domain assumption Uniform transition matrix in discrete diffusion is a valid corruption process for categorical occupancy labels.
    Adopted from Hoogeboom et al. and Nichol and Dhariwal without data-specific justification, and it forms the backbone of the chosen representation.
  • domain assumption The LiDAR-masked mIoU protocol and the camera-invisible and visibility-probability splits in Occ3D-nuScenes faithfully measure perception quality.
    These splits are used for all main tables and are not independently validated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion-Based Generative Models for 3D Occupancy Prediction in Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIMM2QKR

@misc{pith2026250523115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion-Based Generative Models for 3D Occupancy Prediction in Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIMM2QKR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23115}
}
read the original abstract

Accurately predicting 3D occupancy grids from visual inputs is critical for autonomous driving, but current discriminative methods struggle with noisy data, incomplete observations, and the complex structures inherent in 3D scenes. In this work, we reframe 3D occupancy prediction as a generative modeling task using diffusion models, which learn the underlying data distribution and incorporate 3D scene priors. This approach enhances prediction consistency, noise robustness, and better handles the intricacies of 3D spatial structures. Our extensive experiments show that diffusion-based generative models outperform state-of-the-art discriminative approaches, delivering more realistic and accurate occupancy predictions, especially in occluded or low-visibility regions. Moreover, the improved predictions significantly benefit downstream planning tasks, highlighting the practical advantages of our method for real-world autonomous driving applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23115 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diagram illustrates the occupancy data production process (a), the discriminative pipeline (b), and the generative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of using diffusion models for occupancy prediction. A base BEV model is employed to encode the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Ground Truth vs. Predictions, Our model provides denser and more coherent occupancy estimations compared to point cloud-derived ground truths (for instance, it includes complete drivable surfaces). or occlusions, the inclusion of a 3D scene prior inherently equips the model to infer missing information, resulting in more comprehensive perception outputs (see Sec. V-C). This enhancement is crucial for effective downs… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Panoocc: Unified occupancy representation for camera-based 3d panoptic segmentation,

    Y . Wang, Y . Chen, X. Liao, L. Fan, and Z. Zhang, “Panoocc: Unified occupancy representation for camera-based 3d panoptic segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10013, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [44]

    Occgen: Generative multi-modal 3d occupancy prediction for autonomous driving,

    G. Wang, Z. Wang, P. Tang, J. Zheng, X. Ren, B. Feng, and C. Ma, “Occgen: Generative multi-modal 3d occupancy prediction for autonomous driving,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 95–112

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Kitti-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d,

    Y . Liao, J. Xie, and A. Geiger, “Kitti-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene un- derstanding of lidar sequences,

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, C. Stach- niss, and J. Gall, “Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene un- derstanding of lidar sequences,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 9297–9307

    2019

  5. [3]

    Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for autonomous driving,

    X. Tian, T. Jiang, L. Yun, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhao, “Occ3d: A large-scale 3d occupancy prediction benchmark for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14365, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  7. [5]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    arXiv 2010

  8. [6]

    Argmax flows and multinomial diffusion: Learning categorical distributions,

    E. Hoogeboom, D. Nielsen, P. Jaini, P. Forr´e, and M. Welling, “Argmax flows and multinomial diffusion: Learning categorical distributions,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 12 454–12 465, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [7]

    Structured denoising diffusion models in discrete state-spaces,

    J. Austin, D. D. Johnson, J. Ho, D. Tarlow, and R. Van Den Berg, “Structured denoising diffusion models in discrete state-spaces,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 17 981– 17 993, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, pro- ceedings, part III 18. ...

    2015

  3. [9]

    Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar segmentation,

    X. Zhu, H. Zhou, T. Wang, F. Hong, Y . Ma, W. Li, H. Li, and D. Lin, “Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 9939–9948

    2021

  4. [10]

    Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning,

    S. Elfwing, E. Uchibe, and K. Doya, “Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning,” Neural networks, vol. 107, pp. 3–11, 2018

    2018

  5. [11]

    Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers,

    Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Y . Qiao, and J. Dai, “Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–18

    2022

  6. [12]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015, pp. 2256–2265

    2015

  7. [13]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance,

    J. Ho and T. Salimans, “Classifier-free diffusion guidance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol, “Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 8780–8794, 2021

    2021

  9. [15]

    Fb-occ: 3d occupancy prediction based on forward-backward view transformation,

    Z. Li, Z. Yu, D. Austin, M. Fang, S. Lan, J. Kautz, and J. M. Alvarez, “Fb-occ: 3d occupancy prediction based on forward-backward view transformation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01492, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Monoscene: Monocular 3d semantic scene completion,

    A.-Q. Cao and R. de Charette, “Monoscene: Monocular 3d semantic scene completion,” inCVPR, 2022, pp. 3991–4001

    2022

  11. [17]

    Renderocc: Vision-centric 3d occupancy prediction with 2d rendering supervision,

    M. Pan, J. Liu, R. Zhang, P. Huang, X. Li, L. Liu, and S. Zhang, “Renderocc: Vision-centric 3d occupancy prediction with 2d rendering supervision,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09502, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Bevdet: High- performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view,

    J. Huang, G. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y . Ye, and D. Du, “Bevdet: High- performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11790, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Denoising diffusion semantic segmentation with mask prior model- ing,

    Z. Lai, Y . Duan, J. Dai, Z. Li, Y . Fu, H. Li, Y . Qiao, and W. Wang, “Denoising diffusion semantic segmentation with mask prior model- ing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01721, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang, L. Lu, X. Jia, Q. Liu, J. Dai, Y . Qiao, and H. Li, “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Openoccupancy: A large scale benchmark for surrounding semantic occupancy perception,

    X. Wang, Z. Zhu, W. Xu, Y . Zhang, Y . Wei, X. Chi, Y . Ye, D. Du, J. Lu, and X. Wang, “Openoccupancy: A large scale benchmark for surrounding semantic occupancy perception,” inICCV, 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    Occformer: Dual-path transformer for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhu, and D. Du, “Occformer: Dual-path transformer for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction,” inICCV, 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

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

    Y . Wei, L. Zhao, W. Zheng, Z. Zhu, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Surroundocc: Multi-camera 3d occupancy prediction for autonomous driving,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 21 729–21 740

    2023

  18. [25]

    Pointocc: Cylindrical tri-perspective view for point-based 3d semantic occupancy predic- tion,

    S. Zuo, W. Zheng, Y . Huang, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Pointocc: Cylindrical tri-perspective view for point-based 3d semantic occupancy predic- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16896, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A simple attempt for 3d occupancy estimation in autonomous driving,

    W. Gan, N. Mo, H. Xu, and N. Yokoya, “A simple attempt for 3d occupancy estimation in autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10076, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Scenerf: Self-supervised monocular 3d scene reconstruction with radiance fields,

    A.-Q. Cao and R. de Charette, “Scenerf: Self-supervised monocular 3d scene reconstruction with radiance fields,” inICCV, 2023, pp. 9387– 9398

    2023

  21. [28]

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

    Y . Huang, W. Zheng, Y . Zhang, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Tri-perspective view for vision-based 3d semantic occupancy prediction,” inCVPR, 2023, pp. 9223–9232

    2023

  22. [29]

    V oxformer: Sparse voxel transformer for camera- based 3d semantic scene completion,

    Y . Li, Z. Yu, C. Choy, C. Xiao, J. M. Alvarez, S. Fidler, C. Feng, and A. Anandkumar, “V oxformer: Sparse voxel transformer for camera- based 3d semantic scene completion,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 9087–9098

    2023

  23. [30]

    Scene as occupancy,

    W. Tong, C. Sima, T. Wang, L. Chen, S. Wu, H. Deng, Y . Gu, L. Lu, P. Luo, D. Lin,et al., “Scene as occupancy,” inICCV, 2023, pp. 8406– 8415

    2023

  24. [31]

    Mapprior: Bird’s-eye view map layout estimation with generative models,

    X. Zhu, V . Zyrianov, Z. Liu, and S. Wang, “Mapprior: Bird’s-eye view map layout estimation with generative models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 8228–8239

    2023

  25. [32]

    Joint 2d- 3d-semantic data for indoor scene understanding,

    I. Armeni, S. Sax, A. R. Zamir, and S. Savarese, “Joint 2d- 3d-semantic data for indoor scene understanding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01105, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,

    A. Dai, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, M. Halber, T. Funkhouser, and M. Nießner, “Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 5828–5839

    2017

  27. [34]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for scene-scale 3d categorical data,

    J. Lee, W. Im, S. Lee, and S.-E. Yoon, “Diffusion probabilistic models for scene-scale 3d categorical data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00527, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Bevcontrol: Accurately controlling street-view elements with multi-perspective consistency via bev sketch layout,

    K. Yang, E. Ma, J. Peng, Q. Guo, D. Lin, and K. Yu, “Bevcontrol: Accurately controlling street-view elements with multi-perspective consistency via bev sketch layout,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01661, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Street-view image generation from a bird’s-eye view layout,

    A. Swerdlow, R. Xu, and B. Zhou, “Street-view image generation from a bird’s-eye view layout,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    Drivingdiffusion: Layout-guided multi- view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model,

    X. Li, Y . Zhang, and X. Ye, “Drivingdiffusion: Layout-guided multi- view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07771, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Magicdrive: Street view generation with diverse 3d geometry con- trol,

    R. Gao, K. Chen, E. Xie, L. Hong, Z. Li, D.-Y . Yeung, and Q. Xu, “Magicdrive: Street view generation with diverse 3d geometry con- trol,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02601, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Learning unsupervised world models for autonomous driving via discrete diffusion,

    L. Zhang, Y . Xiong, Z. Yang, S. Casas, R. Hu, and R. Urtasun, “Learning unsupervised world models for autonomous driving via discrete diffusion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01017, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving,

    Y . Wen, Y . Zhao, Y . Liu, F. Jia, Y . Wang, C. Luo, C. Zhang, T. Wang, X. Sun, and X. Zhang, “Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16813, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Learning compact representations for lidar completion and generation,

    Y . Xiong, W.-C. Ma, J. Wang, and R. Urtasun, “Learning compact representations for lidar completion and generation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, 2023, pp. 1074–1083

    2023

  35. [42]

    Lopr: Latent occupancy prediction using generative models,

    B. Lange, M. Itkina, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Lopr: Latent occupancy prediction using generative models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01249, 2022

    2022

  36. [43]

    Diffbev: Conditional diffusion model for bird’s eye view perception,

    J. Zou, Z. Zhu, Y . Ye, and X. Wang, “Diffbev: Conditional diffusion model for bird’s eye view perception,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08333, 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.