Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

SplatAD: Real-Time Lidar and Camera Rendering with 3D Gaussian Splatting for Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SplatAD is the first 3D Gaussian Splatting method that renders both camera images and lidar point clouds in real time for dynamic driving scenes, reporting quality that matches or beats slower neural-radiance-field baselines.

desk verdict A genuine first for lidar rendering with 3DGS, but the rolling-shutter evaluation is self-consistent rather than physically validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16816 v3 pith:ZSLJKXN4 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV cs.GR

Georg Hess , Carl Lindström , Maryam Fatemi , Christoffer Petersson , Lennart Svensson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords 3DGaussianSplattinglidarrenderingcameraautonomousdrivingsimulationnovelviewsynthesisrollingshuttersensor-realisticdynamicscene
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

SplatAD proposes that one explicit 3D Gaussian scene representation can serve as a digital twin for an autonomous-driving log, rendering both camera images and lidar point clouds in real time. The paper's central claim is that the sensor-specific effects that previously pushed lidar simulation into slow ray-tracing pipelines—rolling shutter, beam divergence, laser intensity, and rays that return nothing—can be folded into a rasterizer and absorbed by trainable per-Gaussian features. If that claim is right, closed-loop simulation for driving tests becomes about ten times cheaper, because the same scene can feed camera-based and lidar-based perception stacks at interactive speed. On three public driving datasets, SplatAD reports up to +2 PSNR on novel-view images and +3 PSNR on reconstruction, with lidar depth error matching the slower ray-tracing baseline.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 3D Gaussian scene graph: static background plus rigid dynamic actors, with Gaussian means and covariances expressed in each actor's local frame and composed into the world at render time. The argument is carried by three mechanisms. First, per-Gaussian learnable features replace spherical harmonics and are decoded by a small CNN for images and a lightweight MLP for lidar intensity and ray-drop probability, letting one representation serve both modalities. Second, rolling-shutter compensation is done in sensor space: each Gaussian's mean is shifted by a pixel velocity or spherical velocity that combines sensor motion with actor motion, scaled by the capture-time offset of the row or lidar point. Third, lidar rasterization tiles follow the sensor's own non-equidistant elevation channels and fixed azimuth resolution, so it splats directly in spherical coordinates instead of projecting into dense depth images and avoids wasted computation in sparse regions.

What would settle it

Train SplatAD on a driving log that contains a hard deceleration or emergency lane change inside a lidar sweep, then compare the rendered median depth and ray-drop accuracy on held-out frames against the real lidar points on those braking frames; if the depth error jumps well beyond the reported 0.01–0.02 m and ray-drop accuracy drops below the NeRF baseline specifically in the accelerating portion of the sweep, the constant-velocity rolling-shutter assumption is the failing part.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own account, SplatAD is the first 3D Gaussian Splatting method to render lidar and camera from the same dynamically composed scene. The scene is a set of 3D Gaussians split into a static background and rigid actors, each Gaussian carrying a base color and a 13-dimensional learnable feature; each sensor also gets a small learned embedding to absorb appearance differences. Cameras are rendered with the standard 3DGS tile rasterizer, modified to handle rolling shutter by shifting each Gaussian's image-space mean according to its velocity and the pixel's capture time. Lidar is rendered by a custom spherical-coordinate rasterizer with tiles aligned to the sensor's elevation channels and azimuth resolution, producing expected range, median range, intensity, and ray-drop probability. The paper reports that this matches the lidar quality of a ray-tracing NeRF baseline (0.01 m median depth error on PandaSet) while rendering lidar at 19.5 million points per second versus that baseline's 1.1, and beats all compared methods on image novel-view synthesis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ego vehicle, its sensors, and every dynamic actor keep constant linear and angular velocities during a capture window, so a 100 ms lidar sweep that includes hard braking or acceleration falls outside the model's rolling-shutter compensation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trained scene model can feed both camera-based and lidar-based perception stacks in closed-loop simulation, with no separate depth-image renderer for lidar.
  • Modeled ray dropouts yield realistic sparse point clouds, so downstream lidar perception sees missing returns rather than artificially dense geometry.
  • The reported order-of-magnitude speedup over NeRF-based simulators lets the same compute budget cover more scenarios or longer test drives.
  • The rolling-shutter compensation works in sensor space, so it transfers to any rolling-shutter camera with known row timing and to lidar sweeps of different durations.
  • Rendering lidar directly in spherical coordinates instead of through depth images removes the line-of-sight errors that projection-based 3DGS baselines suffer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same differentiable spherical lidar renderer could serve as a sensor proxy for gradient-based tuning of perception stacks or extrinsic calibration, a use the paper does not discuss.
  • Beyond the paper: the constant-velocity motion model is the most likely failure point, so a natural stress test is a sequence with mid-sweep braking; the method's depth error should rise exactly on those frames.
  • Beyond the paper: because appearance is partly carried by per-sensor learned embeddings, swapping embeddings at inference could edit exposure or sensor look without retraining, something the paper leaves implicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. SplatAD proposes a 3D Gaussian Splatting framework that renders both camera images and lidar point clouds from a unified scene representation for dynamic autonomous driving scenes. The method extends 3DGS with per-Gaussian learnable features, a scene-graph decomposition for rigid dynamic actors, rolling-shutter compensation in image and spherical sensor coordinates, a custom tile-based lidar rasterizer, and lightweight CNN/MLP decoders for image color, lidar intensity, and ray-drop probability. Experiments on PandaSet, Argoverse 2, and nuScenes compare against UniSim, NeuRAD, PVG, Street Gaussians, and OmniRe. The paper reports state-of-the-art image novel-view-synthesis metrics, lidar depth and intensity errors matching NeuRAD, and an order-of-magnitude rendering speedup over NeRF-based baselines.

Significance. The paper addresses an important practical gap: previous 3DGS methods for autonomous driving render only cameras, while NeRF-based sensor simulators are too slow for large-scale closed-loop testing. SplatAD's unified representation, custom CUDA kernels for spherical lidar rasterization, and explicit modeling of rolling shutter, intensity, and ray dropouts are valuable contributions. The authors use official baseline implementations, provide ablations for each design choice, and make their approach built on open-source frameworks. However, the quantitative claims about lidar rendering quality are weakened by methodological issues in the evaluation protocol, specifically the circular use of the linear-motion assumption in the ground-truth construction and the unequal point sets used for comparison. If these issues are addressed, the paper would provide a solid basis for real-time multi-modal sensor simulation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.2, Eq. (11)-(12), Table 2] The lidar ground truth used for evaluation is constructed by un-compensating the dataset's ego-motion-compensated point cloud using the same linear-velocity assumption that the renderer applies in Eq. (11)-(12). Appendix A.2 states that when removing ego-motion compensation, the authors assume a linear motion during the lidar scan's capture; Eq. (12) compensates the rendered range by the range-component of the relative velocity times the scan time offset. Both the reference and the prediction are therefore expressed in a coordinate frame defined by the linear motion model. The reported 0.01 m depth error on PandaSet measures agreement with that model, not physical accuracy under real vehicle dynamics such as acceleration or braking during the 100 ms sweep. The ablation in Table 5, row (f), compares against the same linearized reference and thus does not bound the potential bias. Please provide an evaluation against a reference that does not inherit this assumption, for example the dataset's original compensated point cloud expressed in the sweep's reference frame, or per-point poses from an external high-rate odometry or IMU source. In addition, report the depth error separately on segments with high longitudinal or lateral acceleration.
  2. [Sec. 4, Table 2, Appendix C] The lidar comparison is not made on identical point sets. The 3DGS baselines (PVG, Street-GS, OmniRe) are evaluated only on existing lidar points because drivestudio cannot infer missing points, whereas SplatAD is evaluated on the full ray set after filtering with its predicted ray-drop probability. Since the dropout predictor is learned, SplatAD may discard difficult rays, making per-point depth error and Chamfer distance favorable. This undermines the headline claim of matching NeuRAD's depth error. Please add a table row in which SplatAD is evaluated on exactly the same non-missing point set as the baselines without dropout filtering, and, if feasible, also evaluate the baselines on the same full ray set after applying their own or a fixed dropout criterion.
  3. [Appendix A.2] During training, lidar points whose un-compensated coordinates produce more than 256 points in a tile are shuffled and discarded. The paper itself notes that this situation occurs when the linear motion assumption is violated. Consequently, the training distribution is censored with respect to the very events (heavy acceleration, braking, rapid turns) that would stress-test the constant-velocity approximation used for rolling-shutter compensation. The evaluation does not quantify how many points are discarded, nor whether the held-out frames contain such events. Please report the fraction of discarded points per dataset and analyze a subset of frames with aggressive maneuvers, or justify why the censoring is negligible for the claimed realism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables 1-3] The main quantitative results are reported as single-run averages without variance. Since the claims of state-of-the-art performance often hinge on differences of 0.5-1.5 PSNR or 0.01 m in depth error, please report standard deviations or confidence intervals across the 10 sequences per dataset.
  2. [Table 5] Ablations are averaged over all three datasets, which can hide dataset-specific effects of rolling-shutter compensation, dropout handling, and EWA antialiasing. A per-dataset breakdown would make it clearer whether the modest quantitative effects are consistent across sensors with different beam counts and scan durations.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Table 2] The unit 'MR/s' for lidar rendering speed is introduced without definition; please define it as megarais per second (or equivalent) and clarify that it refers to the number of rendered lidar points per second, to avoid confusion with the camera 'MP/s' unit.
  4. [Acknowledgements] There is a typo in the acknowledgements: 'valueable feedback' should be 'valuable feedback'.
  5. [Eq. (13) and Appendix B] The notation λ_MCMC in Eq. (13) is later decomposed into λ_o and λ_Σ in Appendix B; consider stating this decomposition in the main text to avoid confusion about the total loss weighting.
  6. [Abstract and Intro] The claim of being the first 3DGS-based method for lidar rendering is categorical. Please soften it to 'to our knowledge' and, in the final version, cite any concurrent works that appeared since the first arXiv posting to keep the novelty statement accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No reduction-by-construction found: lidar and camera predictions are trained and evaluated against held-out sensor data, and the only self-citation (NeuRAD baseline) is not load-bearing. The shared linear-motion assumption in lidar GT preprocessing is an evaluation-validity caveat, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

SplatAD's derivation chain is self-contained: 3D Gaussians with per-Gaussian features are rendered through differentiable camera and lidar rasterizers, and all losses in Eq. (13) compare against held-out sensor observations (L1/SSIM on images, L2 depth and intensity on lidar ranges, BCE on ray drop). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: sensor velocities and time offsets are optimized on training frames and applied at test time via Eqs. (1), (11), and (12), which is standard novel-view-synthesis practice rather than circularity. The lidar depth error in Table 2 compares rendered range to measured lidar ranges, not to the renderer's own output, so the 0.01 m result is not forced by construction. The authors' prior NeuRAD work is used as a baseline and for the evaluation protocol, but the central claim—that 3DGS can render lidar in real time—does not depend on NeuRAD's correctness; using official code is a reproducibility strength. One caveat deserves explicit flagging: Appendix A.2 un-compensates lidar ground-truth ego-motion by assuming linear motion during the scan, and the renderer's rolling-shutter model in Eqs. (11)–(12) makes the same constant-velocity assumption. This means the evaluation cannot validate the linear-motion approximation against true accelerated ego motion; the reported depth error partly measures consistency with the linearized reference. However, this is not a circular reduction: the GT ranges remain physically measured values, and the depth error is not algebraically driven to zero by the shared assumption. It is a correctness/generalization limitation, appropriately weighed under correctness risk rather than circularity. The Limitations section honestly notes the rigid-actor restriction; it does not claim to address the linear-motion preprocessing caveat, which is a completeness gap but not a circular step. Overall, the only reason the score is not 0 is the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation to NeuRAD and its evaluation protocol.

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

The central claim rests on standard 3DGS assumptions, a rigid-actor scene graph, a linear-velocity rolling shutter model, and heuristic design choices. These are all clearly stated or ablated in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • EWA antialiasing sharpness s = 0.3 camera; geometric-mean beam divergence for lidar
    Alpha falloff in Eq. (5); follows Mip-Splatting [47] and the one-pixel heuristic.
  • Loss weights = lambda_r=0.8, lambda_depth=0.1, lambda_los=0.1, lambda_intens=1.0, lambda_raydrop=0.1, lambda_o=0.005…
    Set heuristically per Appendix B; they balance image, depth, intensity, and ray-drop terms.
  • Lidar tile size = N_phi=32, N_omega=8
    Gives 256 rasterization threads per tile, mirroring 16x16 image tiles (Appendix A.1).
  • Per-Gaussian feature dimension = D_f=13
    Feature vector length shared by camera and lidar decoders (Appendix B).
  • Maximum Gaussian count = 5M
    MCMC densification cap (Appendix B).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Jacobian of the spherical transform maps Gaussian covariances correctly (Eq. 10)
    Standard change-of-variables for the Gaussian projection used in the lidar rasterizer.
  • standard math Alpha compositing in Eq. (4) to Eq. (6) approximates ray accumulation
    Standard 3DGS volume-rendering approximation, inherited from [14].
  • domain assumption Dynamic actors are rigid and posed by off-the-shelf detector/tracker
    Section 3.1: scene graph with bounding boxes and SE(3) poses; limitations section notes rigid-only actors.
  • domain assumption Lidar is a rotating diode array with fixed azimuth resolution
    Section 3.3; other lidar types are deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption Constant velocity during exposure/sweep
    Eqs. (1) and (11), Appendix A.2 linear ego-motion model.
  • domain assumption Ray drop probability and intensity can be decoded from per-Gaussian features by a small MLP
    Section 3.3; an empirical modeling capacity assumption validated by results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SplatAD: Real-Time Lidar and Camera Rendering with 3D Gaussian Splatting for Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSLJKXN4

@misc{pith2026241116816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SplatAD: Real-Time Lidar and Camera Rendering with 3D Gaussian Splatting for Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSLJKXN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16816}
}
read the original abstract

Ensuring the safety of autonomous robots, such as self-driving vehicles, requires extensive testing across diverse driving scenarios. Simulation is a key ingredient for conducting such testing in a cost-effective and scalable way. Neural rendering methods have gained popularity, as they can build simulation environments from collected logs in a data-driven manner. However, existing neural radiance field (NeRF) methods for sensor-realistic rendering of camera and lidar data suffer from low rendering speeds, limiting their applicability for large-scale testing. While 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables real-time rendering, current methods are limited to camera data and are unable to render lidar data essential for autonomous driving. To address these limitations, we propose SplatAD, the first 3DGS-based method for realistic, real-time rendering of dynamic scenes for both camera and lidar data. SplatAD accurately models key sensor-specific phenomena such as rolling shutter effects, lidar intensity, and lidar ray dropouts, using purpose-built algorithms to optimize rendering efficiency. Evaluation across three autonomous driving datasets demonstrates that SplatAD achieves state-of-the-art rendering quality with up to +2 PSNR for NVS and +3 PSNR for reconstruction while increasing rendering speed over NeRF-based methods by an order of magnitude. See https://research.zenseact.com/publications/splatad/ for our project page.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16816 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SplatAD is the first method capable of realistic camera and lidar rendering using 3D Gaussian Splatting. Whereas previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed method. Given the composition of static and dynamic 3D Gaussians, SplatAD is capable of differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compared to the baselines, SplatAD produces sharp images with a high level of detail. Further, the bottom row highlights the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Removing our rolling shutter modeling compensation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The CNN decoder improves sharpness and is more true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of an example of the components in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative NVS examples for nuScenes. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative NVS examples for PandaSet. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative NVS examples for Argoverse2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative NVS example for our lidar intensity rendering. We illustrate a rendered point cloud painted with predicted intensity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ExtraGS: Geometric-Aware Trajectory Extrapolation with Uncertainty-Guided Generative Priors

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    ExtraGS combines Gaussian-SDF road surfaces, far-field Gaussians, and spherical-harmonics uncertainty gating to generate geometrically consistent extrapolated driving views.

  2. R3eVision: A Survey on Robust Rendering, Restoration, and Enhancement for 3D Low-Level Vision

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The survey formalizes degradation-aware rendering for 3D Low-Level Vision and organizes roughly 100 methods on super-resolution, deblurring, weather removal, restoration, and enhancement in NeRF and 3DGS pipelines.

  3. PINGS: Gaussian Splatting Meets Distance Fields within a Point-Based Implicit Neural Map

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PINGS jointly builds a signed distance field and a Gaussian splatting radiance field in one point-based neural map, using geometric consistency to improve both.

  4. SurfFill: Completion of LiDAR Point Clouds via Gaussian Surfel Splatting

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SurfFill completes missing thin structures in LiDAR point clouds by focusing Gaussian surfel splatting on density-ambiguous regions surrounding the gaps.

  5. Impact of Solar Particle Events on Space Radiation Shielding: OLTARIS Simulation and Quantum Optimization of Material Selection using QAOA and VQE Algorithms

    physics.med-ph 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract claims quantum-optimized shielding material selection, but the full text is an unrelated 3D Gaussian Splatting paper, so the claim is unsupported.

  6. Decomposing Densification in Gaussian Splatting for Faster 3D Scene Reconstruction

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A split-then-clone densification schedule with energy-guided multi-resolution training roughly halves 3D Gaussian Splatting training time while keeping reconstruction quality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Zenseact open dataset: A large-scale and diverse multimodal dataset for autonomous driving

    Mina Alibeigi, William Ljungbergh, Adam Tonderski, Georg Hess, Adam Lilja, Carl Lindstr ¨om, Daria Motorniuk, Jun- sheng Fu, Jenny Widahl, and Christoffer Petersson. Zenseact open dataset: A large-scale and diverse multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In ICCV, pages 20178–20188,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields. In ICCV, pages 5855–5864, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  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. In CVPR, pages 5470– 5479, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid- based neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pages 19697–19705,

    work page

  5. [5]

    nuscenes: A mul- timodal dataset for autonomous driving

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Giancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A mul- timodal dataset for autonomous driving. In CVPR, pages 11621–11631, 2020. 1, 6

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Periodic vibration gaussian: Dynamic urban scene reconstruction and real-time rendering

    Yurui Chen, Chun Gu, Junzhe Jiang, Xiatian Zhu, and Li Zhang. Periodic vibration gaussian: Dynamic urban scene reconstruction and real-time rendering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18561, 2023. 2, 7

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Omnire: Omni ur- ban scene reconstruction

    Ziyu Chen, Jiawei Yang, Jiahui Huang, Riccardo de Lutio, Janick Martinez Esturo, Boris Ivanovic, Or Litany, Zan Go- jcic, Sanja Fidler, Marco Pavone, et al. Omnire: Omni ur- ban scene reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16760,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    drivestudio

    Ziyu Chen, Jiawei Yang, Jiahui Huang, Riccardo de Lu- tio, Janick Martinez Esturo, Boris Ivanovic, Or Litany, Zan Gojcic, Sanja Fidler, Marco Pavone, Li Song, and Yue Wang. drivestudio. https://github.com/ziyc/ drivestudio, 2024. 7, 2

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas M ¨uller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In ICML, 2024. 8

    2024

  2. [10]

    Panoptic nerf: 3d-to-2d label transfer for panoptic urban scene segmentation

    Xiao Fu, Shangzhan Zhang, Tianrun Chen, Yichong Lu, Lanyun Zhu, Xiaowei Zhou, Andreas Geiger, and Yiyi Liao. Panoptic nerf: 3d-to-2d label transfer for panoptic urban scene segmentation. In 3DV, pages 1–11. IEEE, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [11]

    Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Ruiqi Gao, Aleksander Holynski, Philipp Henzler, Arthur Brussee, Ricardo Martin Brualla, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Poole. CAT3d: Create any- thing in 3d with multi-view diffusion models. In NeurIPS,

  4. [12]

    Humans in 4d: Re- constructing and tracking humans with transformers

    Shubham Goel, Georgios Pavlakos, Jathushan Rajasegaran, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Jitendra Malik. Humans in 4d: Re- constructing and tracking humans with transformers. In ICCV, pages 14783–14794, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Neural lidar fields for novel view synthesis

    Shengyu Huang, Zan Gojcic, Zian Wang, Francis Williams, Yoni Kasten, Sanja Fidler, Konrad Schindler, and Or Litany. Neural lidar fields for novel view synthesis. In ICCV, pages 18236–18246, 2023. 2

    2023

  6. [14]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. TOG, 42(4):139–1, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    2023

  7. [15]

    Autosplat: Constrained gaussian splatting for autonomous driving scene reconstruction, 2024

    Mustafa Khan, Hamidreza Fazlali, Dhruv Sharma, Tongtong Cao, Dongfeng Bai, Yuan Ren, and Bingbing Liu. Autosplat: Constrained gaussian splatting for autonomous driving scene reconstruction, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    3d gaussian splat- ting as markov chain monte carlo

    Shakiba Kheradmand, Daniel Rebain, Gopal Sharma, Wei- wei Sun, Yang-Che Tseng, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. 3d gaussian splat- ting as markov chain monte carlo. In NeurIPS, 2024. 6, 8, 2

    2024

  9. [17]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In ICLR, 2015. 2

    2015

  10. [18]

    Hugs: Human gaussian splats

    Muhammed Kocabas, Jen-Hao Rick Chang, James Gabriel, Oncel Tuzel, and Anurag Ranjan. Hugs: Human gaussian splats. In CVPR, pages 505–515, 2024. 8

    2024

  11. [19]

    Panoptic neural fields: A semantic object-aware neural scene representation

    Abhijit Kundu, Kyle Genova, Xiaoqi Yin, Alireza Fathi, Car- oline Pantofaru, Leonidas J Guibas, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Frank Dellaert, and Thomas Funkhouser. Panoptic neural fields: A semantic object-aware neural scene representation. In CVPR, pages 12871–12881, 2022. 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Generalizable human gaussians for sparse view synthesis

    Youngjoong Kwon, Baole Fang, Yixing Lu, Haoye Dong, Cheng Zhang, Francisco Vicente Carrasco, Albert Mosella- Montoro, Jianjin Xu, Shingo Takagi, Daeil Kim, Aayush Prakash, and Fernando De la Torre. Generalizable human gaussians for sparse view synthesis. In ECCV, pages 451– 46...

    2025

  13. [21]

    A progress review on solid-state lidar and nanophotonics-based lidar sensors

    Nanxi Li, Chong Pei Ho, Jin Xue, Leh Woon Lim, Guanyu Chen, Yuan Hsing Fu, and Lennon Yao Ting Lee. A progress review on solid-state lidar and nanophotonics-based lidar sensors. Laser & Photonics Reviews, 16(11):2100511, 2022. 5

    2022

  14. [22]

    Are nerfs ready for autonomous driving? towards closing the real-to-simulation gap

    Carl Lindstr ¨om, Georg Hess, Adam Lilja, Maryam Fatemi, Lars Hammarstrand, Christoffer Petersson, and Lennart Svensson. Are nerfs ready for autonomous driving? towards closing the real-to-simulation gap. In CVPRW, pages 4461– 4471, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Neuroncap: Photorealistic closed- 9 loop safety testing for autonomous driving

    William Ljungbergh, Adam Tonderski, Joakim Johnan- der, Holger Caesar, Kalle ˚Astr¨om, Michael Felsberg, and Christoffer Petersson. Neuroncap: Photorealistic closed- 9 loop safety testing for autonomous driving. In ECCV, pages 161–177. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  16. [24]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi- person linear model. TOG, 34(6):248:1–248:16, 2015. 2

    2015

  17. [25]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    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. In ECCV, pages 405–421, Cham, 2020. Springer In- ternational Publishing. 1, 2

    2020

  18. [26]

    Human gaussian splatting: Real-time rendering of animatable avatars

    Arthur Moreau, Jifei Song, Helisa Dhamo, Richard Shaw, Yiren Zhou, and Eduardo P ´erez-Pellitero. Human gaussian splatting: Real-time rendering of animatable avatars. In CVPR, pages 788–798, 2024. 8

    2024

  19. [27]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding. TOG, 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  20. [28]

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th´eo Moutakanni, Huy V . V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel HAZIZA, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mido Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michael ...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Neural scene graphs for dynamic scenes

    Julian Ost, Fahim Mannan, Nils Thuerey, Julian Knodt, and Felix Heide. Neural scene graphs for dynamic scenes. In CVPR, pages 2856–2865, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  22. [30]

    Urban radiance fields

    Konstantinos Rematas, Andrew Liu, Pratul P Srini- vasan, Jonathan T Barron, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Thomas Funkhouser, and Vittorio Ferrari. Urban radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 12932–12942, 2022. 4

    2022

  23. [31]

    Gaussian splatting on the move: Blur and rolling shutter compensation for natural camera mo- tion

    Otto Seiskari, Jerry Ylilammi, Valtteri Kaatrasalo, Pekka Rantalankila, Matias Turkulainen, Juho Kannala, Esa Rahtu, and Arno Solin. Gaussian splatting on the move: Blur and rolling shutter compensation for natural camera mo- tion. In ECCV, pages 160–177, Cham, 2025. Springer ...

    2025

  24. [32]

    Exposing flaws of generative model evaluation metrics and their unfair treatment of diffusion models

    George Stein, Jesse Cresswell, Rasa Hosseinzadeh, Yi Sui, Brendan Ross, Valentin Villecroze, Zhaoyan Liu, Anthony L Caterini, Eric Taylor, and Gabriel Loaiza-Ganem. Exposing flaws of generative model evaluation metrics and their unfair treatment of diffusion models. NeurIPS, 3...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Rethinking the inception ar- chitecture for computer vision

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception ar- chitecture for computer vision. In CVPR, pages 2818–2826,

  26. [34]

    neurad-studio

    Adam Tonderski, Carl Lindstr ¨om, Georg Hess, and William Ljungbergh. neurad-studio. https://github.com/ georghess/neurad-studio, 2024. 6, 7

    2024

  27. [35]

    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. InCVPR, pages 14895–14904, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8

    2024

  28. [36]

    Suds: Scalable urban dynamic scenes

    Haithem Turki, Jason Y Zhang, Francesco Ferroni, and Deva Ramanan. Suds: Scalable urban dynamic scenes. In CVPR, pages 12375–12385, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  29. [37]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE TIP, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 7

    2004

  30. [38]

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

    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]

    Dynamic lidar re- simulation using compositional neural fields

    Hanfeng Wu, Xingxing Zuo, Stefan Leutenegger, Or Litany, Konrad Schindler, and Shengyu Huang. Dynamic lidar re- simulation using compositional neural fields. In CVPR, pages 19988–19998, 2024. 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    Reconfusion: 3d reconstruction with diffusion priors

    Rundi Wu, Ben Mildenhall, Philipp Henzler, Keunhong Park, Ruiqi Gao, Daniel Watson, Pratul P Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Poole, et al. Reconfusion: 3d reconstruction with diffusion priors. In CVPR, pages 21551–21561, 2024. 8

    2024

  33. [41]

    Pandaset: Ad- vanced sensor suite dataset for autonomous driving

    Pengchuan Xiao, Zhenlei Shao, Steven Hao, Zishuo Zhang, Xiaolin Chai, Judy Jiao, Zesong Li, Jian Wu, Kai Sun, Kun Jiang, Yunlong Wang, and Diange Yang. Pandaset: Ad- vanced sensor suite dataset for autonomous driving. In 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Syste...

    2021

  34. [42]

    S-neRF: Neural radiance fields for street views

    Ziyang Xie, Junge Zhang, Wenye Li, Feihu Zhang, and Li Zhang. S-neRF: Neural radiance fields for street views. In ICLR, 2023. 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Street gaussians for modeling dynamic ur- ban scenes

    Yunzhi Yan, Haotong Lin, Chenxu Zhou, Weijie Wang, Haiyang Sun, Kun Zhan, Xianpeng Lang, Xiaowei Zhou, and Sida Peng. Street gaussians for modeling dynamic ur- ban scenes. In ECCV, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 7

    2024

  36. [44]

    EmerneRF: Emergent spatial- temporal scene decomposition via self-supervision

    Jiawei Yang, Boris Ivanovic, Or Litany, Xinshuo Weng, Se- ung Wook Kim, Boyi Li, Tong Che, Danfei Xu, Sanja Fidler, Marco Pavone, and Yue Wang. EmerneRF: Emergent spatial- temporal scene decomposition via self-supervision. InICLR,

  37. [45]

    Unisim: A neural closed-loop sensor simulator

    Ze Yang, Yun Chen, Jingkang Wang, Sivabalan Mani- vasagam, Wei-Chiu Ma, Anqi Joyce Yang, and Raquel Ur- tasun. Unisim: A neural closed-loop sensor simulator. In CVPR, pages 1389–1399, 2023. 1, 2, 7, 3

    2023

  38. [46]

    gsplat: An open-source library for gaussian splatting

    Vickie Ye, Ruilong Li, Justin Kerr, Matias Turkulainen, Brent Yi, Zhuoyang Pan, Otto Seiskari, Jianbo Ye, Jeffrey Hu, Matthew Tancik, et al. gsplat: An open-source library for gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06765, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splat- ting

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splat- ting. In CVPR, pages 19447–19456, 2024. 4, 5, 8

    2024

  40. [48]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR, pages 586–595,

  41. [49]

    Lidar4d: Dynamic neural fields for novel space-time view lidar synthesis

    Zehan Zheng, Fan Lu, Weiyi Xue, Guang Chen, and Changjun Jiang. Lidar4d: Dynamic neural fields for novel space-time view lidar synthesis. InCVPR, pages 5145–5154,

  42. [50]

    Hugs: Holistic urban 3d scene understanding via gaus- sian splatting

    Hongyu Zhou, Jiahao Shao, Lu Xu, Dongfeng Bai, Weichao Qiu, Bingbing Liu, Yue Wang, Andreas Geiger, and Yiyi Liao. Hugs: Holistic urban 3d scene understanding via gaus- sian splatting. In CVPR, pages 21336–21345, 2024. 2

    2024

  43. [51]

    Drivinggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic au- tonomous driving scenes

    Xiaoyu Zhou, Zhiwei Lin, Xiaojun Shan, Yongtao Wang, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Drivinggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic au- tonomous driving scenes. In CVPR, pages 21634–21643,

  44. [52]

    actor co- ordinate system

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross. Ewa volume splatting. In Proceedings Visu- alization, 2001. VIS’01., pages 29–538. IEEE, 2001. 4, 8 11 SplatAD: Real-Time Lidar and Camera Rendering with 3D Gaussian Splatting for Autonomous Driving Supple...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.