Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that a purely synthetic, motion-oriented LiDAR dataset can serve as a domain-invariant motion prior, enabling zero-shot transfer to real-world sensors and reducing annotation demand by a factor of four.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 16:28 UTC pith:Z75F4ZUR

load-bearing objection SynFlow-4k is the first LiDAR-specific synthetic scene flow dataset with motion-oriented generation, and the zero-shot results are convincing enough to referee — but the coordinate-frame ambiguity in the label equation (Eq. 3) needs to be resolved before the numbers can be fully trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2604.09411 v2 pith:Z75F4ZUR submitted 2026-04-10 cs.CV

SynFlow: Scaling Up LiDAR Scene Flow Estimation with Synthetic Data

Qingwen Zhang , Xiaomeng Zhu , Chenhan Jiang , Patric Jensfelt This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords LiDAR scene flowsynthetic datasim-to-real transferzero-shot generalizationmotion priordata generation pipelineautonomous driving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that dense LiDAR scene flow supervision does not need to come from real-world labels or even real-looking sensor data. It introduces a simulation pipeline that generates 940k frames of perfectly labeled synthetic LiDAR motion across diverse road geometries, speeds, and multi-agent interactions. Models trained only on this synthetic data transfer zero-shot to real benchmarks, matching in-domain supervised performance on one and beating the best supervised baseline by 31.8% on another. Fine-tuning the synthetic pre-trained model on just 5% of real labels outperforms a model trained from scratch on 20% of real labels. The claim is that kinematic diversity, not visual realism, carries the transfer.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a motion-oriented synthetic dataset, built without modeling sensor noise or texture, provides a domain-invariant motion prior for LiDAR scene flow. The paper demonstrates this by training feed-forward estimators exclusively on SynFlow-4k and evaluating on real-world benchmarks: zero-shot Dynamic Bucket-Normalized EPE of 0.242 on nuScenes versus 0.216 for the in-domain supervised baseline, and 0.274 on TruckScenes versus 0.402 for the supervised baseline—a 31.8% improvement. It further shows that using the synthetic checkpoint as initialization and fine-tuning on 5% real labels yields 0.201, better than the 0.216 achieved by training from scratch on 20% real labe

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the SynFlow data generation pipeline, which applies three policies—greedy topological route coverage to force diverse road geometries, speed-regime coverage including highway loops to broaden displacement magnitudes, and multi-agent interaction control to create non-linear relative motions—inside a synchronous driving simulator. Label generation uses the simulator's privileged rigid-body poses: each LiDAR point is assigned to an agent via instance-tag majority voting, then transported from time t to t+1 by the agent's SE(3) transform, yielding dense, noise-free per-point flow. This converts the simulator's ground-truth physics into direct 3D motion supervision.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest load-bearing premise is that diverse rigid-body kinematic patterns in simulation are sufficient supervision for real LiDAR motion, so sensor-specific noise, point distributions, and non-rigid deformations can be ignored; if real-world generalization is substantially driven by sensor realism or non-rigid dynamics, the zero-shot and label-efficiency claims would overstate the benefit.

What would settle it

Train the same model on SynFlow-4k with an augmented version that adds realistic sensor noise, reflectivity, and non-rigid pedestrian deformation to the synthetic point clouds. If the augmented version significantly outperforms the plain SynFlow-4k in zero-shot tests—especially on the pedestrian (PED) category—then kinematic diversity alone is not sufficient, and the paper's central hypothesis is falsified. Conversely, if adding such realism does not change performance, the hypothesis holds. A second test: evaluate on a dense-pedestrian real benchmark to see whether the PED plateau persists.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Zero-shot transfer from synthetic-only training is a viable alternative to self-supervised or partially labeled real data, matching or exceeding in-domain supervised baselines.
  • A synthetic pre-training checkpoint reduces the real-world annotation budget by roughly a factor of four: 5% fine-tuning beats 20% from-scratch training.
  • Synthetic and real pre-training sources are complementary; merging them improves zero-shot performance, especially for small dynamic agents like pedestrians.
  • The motion prior transfers across LiDAR beam configurations (32/64-beam) and across backbone architectures, indicating it is not tied to a specific sensor or network design.
  • Scaling synthetic data volume improves zero-shot performance up to a point, with most gains by 2k sequences, suggesting a saturation of the rigid-body kinematic distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the kinematic-physics hypothesis is right, the same motion-oriented synthesis recipe could apply to other motion-centric 3D tasks—object tracking, motion forecasting, or point-cloud odometry—where real annotations are scarce and appearance is less important than dynamics.
  • The plateau in pedestrian error suggests that pure rigid-body simulation will not fully solve non-rigid motion; adding non-rigid deformation models or procedurally generated articulated motion to the simulator could be a direct testable extension.
  • The open-loop 'generate-then-train' design implies a ceiling that a closed-loop variant, where failure cases trigger targeted re-simulation, might break; the paper itself identifies this as future work.
  • The greedy route-coverage policy, which gave the largest single ablation gain, points to a general principle for synthetic data generation: diversity of spatial context matters at least as much as the distribution of speeds or object types.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces SynFlow, a CARLA-based procedural pipeline for generating synthetic LiDAR scene flow data, together with SynFlow-4k (4,000 sequences, ~939k frames). The generation strategy is explicitly motion-oriented: it controls route topology, speed regimes, and multi-agent interactions rather than sensor-specific appearance or noise. The authors train feed-forward scene flow estimators (default: ΔFlow) on SynFlow-4k and evaluate zero-shot on nuScenes, TruckScenes, and Aeva, plus fine-tuning with 5–20% of real labels. They report that zero-shot SynFlow-4k is close to in-domain supervised ΔFlow on nuScenes (0.242 vs 0.216 Dynamic Bucket-Normalized EPE) and better on TruckScenes (0.274 vs 0.402), and that fine-tuning on 5% real labels outperforms training from scratch on 20% (0.201 vs 0.216 on nuScenes). Additional experiments study synthetic-data scaling, backbone transfer, generation-policy ablations, and complementarity with UniFlow.

Significance. If the label-generation chain is correct, this is an important result: it provides a large-scale, dense synthetic supervision source for LiDAR scene flow and offers evidence that kinematic diversity can transfer across sensors and domains without explicit domain adaptation. The dataset volume, the breadth of evaluations (three real datasets, multiple backbones, label-budget ablations), and the open-source pipeline are notable strengths and could make SynFlow-4k a valuable community resource. The main risk is that the central quantitative claims depend on the coordinate frame in which the synthetic flow labels are defined, and this is not fully pinned down in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) defines p*_i = T_k^{t+1}(T_k^t)^{-1} p_i and f_i = p*_i - p_i, which is a rigid-body displacement in world coordinates. However, the estimator defined in Eq. (1) consumes point clouds that have been aligned into the target scan frame P_{t+1} by the ego-motion transform T_ego. The supervision must be expressed in that same frame. If p_i is stored in the sensor/ego frame at time t, the correct target-frame label would be E_{t+1}^{-1} T_k^{t+1}(T_k^t)^{-1} E_t p_i - E_{t+1}^{-1} E_t p_i, where E_t and E_{t+1} are the sensor-to-world ego poses. If p_i is instead stored in world coordinates, then f_i must be transformed by E_{t+1}^{-1} before comparison with the network output. The manuscript never states which convention is used, and Eq. (3) matches neither case without an additional transform. Since every number in Tables 2–4 depends on these labels, this is load-bearing. Please sta
  2. [Sec. 5.3] The Aeva evaluation is described as being performed 'on 67 sequences after performing a flow generation consistency check.' This check is never defined. It is not stated what the check tests, how many sequences were discarded, or whether the retained sequences are representative. Since Aeva is used in the zero-shot scaling curves (Fig. 3), the synthetic-real complementarity experiment (Table 5), the generation-policy ablations (Table 6), and the backbone-agnosticism experiment (Table 7), an unspecified filter makes these results hard to reproduce or assess. Please specify the exact consistency check, report the pass rate, and confirm that it does not preferentially remove hard sequences.
  3. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.1] The paper's opening and Sec. 4.1 claim that LiDAR scene flow learning depends 'primarily on capturing diverse kinematic physics rather than specific visual textures.' This is presented as the motivation for the entire motion-oriented design, but it is not directly tested. There is no ablation that varies sensor realism (noise, reflectivity/intensity patterns, beam distributions) or a comparison against a realism-focused synthetic LiDAR baseline. The zero-shot results are consistent with the hypothesis, but they do not establish that texture/sensor realism is irrelevant. I recommend either softening the wording to 'consistent with' or adding an ablation that isolates sensor realism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] Several procedural thresholds are not quantified: the route-coverage threshold τ, the deadlock-resolution stationary-time threshold, and the choice of TM behavior parameters. Exact values are needed for reproducibility.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (2)] The majority-voting tag assignment should clarify what happens when a bounding box contains no LiDAR points, and how occluded/partial boxes are handled. This affects the completeness of the flow labels.
  3. [Tables 2–3] The method 'SeFlow++' is cited as [35], but reference [35] is 'HiMo: High-speed objects motion compensation in point cloud.' Please verify and correct this citation.
  4. [Sec. 5.3] For Aeva, the paper should state the total number of available sequences and the source of the flow labels (official benchmark labels or labels generated by the authors under a public protocol).
  5. [Fig. 3 and Table 1] Fig. 3's y-axis label is clipped ('Dynamic BN'); the full metric name should be given. In Table 1, the split composition rows should clarify that 3k is an additive combination of 1k and 2k in terms of sequences, and that 4k is 2k plus Town12-only routes, to avoid ambiguity about overlap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the transfer claims are evaluated against external real-world benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are that SynFlow-4k provides a domain-invariant motion prior and that models trained on it transfer zero-shot to real-world LiDAR benchmarks. The derivation chain is: (1) generate synthetic LiDAR scans and dense flow labels from CARLA simulator state; (2) train a scene flow network with a supervised loss on these labels; (3) evaluate on nuScenes, TruckScenes, and Aeva with standard metrics. There are no fitted constants or parameters tuned to the target datasets, no 'prediction' that is constructed from the same data it is tested on, and no equation in which the output reduces to the input by definition. The self-citations (TeFlow, SeFlow, DeFlow, DeltaFlow, UniFlow) appear as backbone choices, baseline methods, or comparison points; they are not used to justify the transferability of the synthetic supervision itself. The stated hypothesis that kinematic physics rather than visual texture is the dominant factor is an empirical assumption, and the paper tests it by training on synthetic data and measuring real-world performance; an unproven assumption is not circularity. The coordinate-frame ambiguity in Eq. (3) could be a correctness concern, but it is not a circularity concern because it does not make the prediction equivalent to the input by construction. Overall, the central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of domain assumptions about sim-to-real transfer and label correctness, plus hand-chosen generation parameters. No constants are fitted to the target benchmarks, and no new theoretical entities are introduced. The largest burden is the untested kinematic hypothesis and the opaque Aeva subset filter.

free parameters (4)
  • Route coverage threshold τ = not reported
    Greedy route acceptance condition |R\C| > τ controls topological coverage; chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis. Affects dataset composition and diversity.
  • Simulation timestep Δt = 0.1 s
    Fixed synchronous CARLA step; determines the displacement magnitude support of the flow labels.
  • Deadlock-resolution stationary threshold = not reported
    If ego is stationary beyond a short threshold, local traffic signal is overridden; chosen by hand to maintain dynamic-frame ratio.
  • LiDAR beam configurations = 32/64 beams
    Two sensor configs selected by hand; intended to make the prior sensor-agnostic, not fitted to benchmarks.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption LiDAR scene flow learning depends primarily on capturing diverse kinematic physics rather than specific visual textures or sensor realism.
    Sec. 1: 'We hypothesize that LiDAR scene flow learning depends primarily on capturing diverse kinematic physics rather than specific visual textures.' This is the load-bearing premise for zero-shot transfer; the paper does not ablate sensor realism.
  • domain assumption Simulator poses and per-point instance tags yield noise-free flow labels via Eq. (2) and Eq. (3).
    Sec. 4.3: labels are computed from simulator rigid-body poses and majority-voted point-to-agent assignment; any tag mismatch or non-rigid object deformation introduces label noise that is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Real benchmark ground truth and baseline configurations are valid, comparable references.
    Sec. 5.2-5.3: comparison assumes the 20% labeled subsets and published baseline settings provide a fair in-domain reference; not independently verified here.
  • ad hoc to paper The unspecified Aeva flow generation consistency check selects a representative subset.
    Sec. 5.3: 'we evaluate on 67 sequences after performing a flow generation consistency check'; the check is not described, so the subset could be non-representative.
  • standard math SE(3) rigid-body kinematics are the correct model for point displacement of dynamic agents.
    Eq. (3): f_i = T^{t+1}_k (T^t_k)^{-1} p_i - p_i; standard rigid-body motion, valid for vehicles but approximate for pedestrians.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14196 in / 16575 out tokens · 150998 ms · 2026-08-02T16:28:38.715252+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Reliable 3D dynamic perception requires models that can anticipate motion beyond predefined categories, yet progress is hindered by the scarcity of dense, high-quality motion annotations. While self-supervision on unlabeled real data offers a path forward, empirical evidence suggests that scaling unlabeled data fails to close the performance gap due to noisy proxy signals. In this paper, we propose learning robust real-world motion priors entirely from scalable simulation. We introduce SynFlow, a data generation pipeline for large-scale synthetic LiDAR scene flow. Unlike prior works that prioritize sensor-specific realism, SynFlow employs a motion-oriented strategy to synthesize diverse kinematic patterns across 4,000 sequences ($\sim$940k frames), termed SynFlow-4k. This represents a $34\times$ scale-up in annotated volume over existing real-world benchmarks. Our experiments demonstrate that SynFlow-4k provides a highly domain-invariant motion prior. In a zero-shot regime, models trained only on our synthetic data generalize across multiple real-world benchmarks, comparable to in-domain supervised baselines on nuScenes and outperforming state-of-the-art methods on TruckScenes by 31.8%. Furthermore, SynFlow-4k serves as a label-efficient foundation: fine-tuning with only 5% of real-world labels surpasses models trained from scratch on the full available budget. We open-source the pipeline and dataset to facilitate research in generalizable 3D motion estimation. More detail can be found at https://kin-zhang.github.io/SynFlow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09411 by Chenhan Jiang, Patric Jensfelt, Qingwen Zhang, Xiaomeng Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scaling up LiDAR Scene Flow with Synthetic Data. We present SynFlow, a data gener￾ation pipeline leveraging the CARLA simulator to synthesize diverse, perfectly labeled LiDAR scene flow data (center). While real-world datasets are often constrained by high annotation costs and limited scenario diversity, SynFlow provides a scalable source of dense, noise-free supervi￾sion for learning robust motion priors.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of our SynFlow pipeline and dataset examples. Left: A CARLA world provides diverse road topologies; we construct a route bank using topology-aware coverage to ensure broad spatial exploration and execute rollouts under Traffic Management (TM). Middle: our procedural data engine instantiates an ego vehicle with configurable LiDAR, spawns surrounding agents with controllable policies, and runs synch… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Zero-shot scaling performance (1k–4k sequences). Evaluation on Aeva (a) and TruckScenes (b) using Dynamic Bucket-Normalized EPE (lower is better). Solid blue line in￾dicates the overall mean; dashed lines represent per-category breakdowns. mance improves consistently across both benchmarks, with the most significant gains observed between 1k and 2k. Beyond this point, accuracy begins to stabilize, suggest￾… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dataset visualization. Top: SynFlow-4k samples under 64-beam (row 1) and 32-beam (row 2) configurations, spanning city, roundabout, highway, and merging scenarios. Per-point scene flow labels are rendered as colored vectors. Direction is encoded as hue, and magnitude as saturation. Bottom: representative samples from real-world datasets (nuScenes and TruckScene). scene elements. In contrast, after pre-trai… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CorrelationFlow: A Training-Free Geometric Approach for LiDAR Scene Flow Estimation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Grouping LiDAR points into bird's-eye blobs and recovering object motion from the best-overlap shift — with no training — ranks second among unsupervised methods on a five-dataset scene flow benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In: CVPR (2020)

    Caesar, H., Bankiti, V ., Lang, A.H., V ora, S., Liong, V .E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y ., Baldan, G., Beijbom, O.: nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: CVPR (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Cai, X., Jiang, W., Xu, R., Zhao, W., Ma, J., Liu, S., Li, Y .: Analyzing infrastructure lidar placement with realistic lidar simulation library. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5581–5587. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV)

    Chodosh, N., Ramanan, D., Lucey, S.: Re-evaluating lidar scene flow. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV). pp. 5993–6003 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV57701.2024.00590

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

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

    Choy, C., Gwak, J., Savarese, S.: 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3075–3084 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    In: Conference on robot learning

    Dosovitskiy, A., Ros, G., Codevilla, F., Lopez, A., Koltun, V .: Carla: An open urban driving simulator. In: Conference on robot learning. pp. 1–16. PMLR (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 62062–62082 (2024)

    Fent, F., Kuttenreich, F., Ruch, F., Rizwin, F., Juergens, S., Lechermann, L., Nissler, C., Perl, A., V oll, U., Yan, M., et al.: Man truckscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous trucking in diverse conditions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 62062–62082 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Hoffmann, D.T., Raza, S.H., Jiang, H., Tananaev, D., Klingenhoefer, S., Meinke, M.: Floxels: Fast unsupervised voxel based scene flow estimation. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 22328–22337 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024)

    Jiang, C., Wang, G., Liu, J., Wang, H., Ma, Z., Liu, Z., Liang, Z., Shan, Y ., Du, D.: 3dsfla- belling: Boosting 3d scene flow estimation by pseudo auto-labelling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Jiang, H., Xu, Z., Xie, D., Chen, Z., Jin, H., Luan, F., Shu, Z., Zhang, K., Bi, S., Sun, X., et al.: Megasynth: Scaling up 3d scene reconstruction with synthesized data. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 16441–16452 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision

    Jiang, W., Xiang, H., Cai, X., Xu, R., Ma, J., Li, Y ., Lee, G.H., Liu, S.: Optimizing the placement of roadside lidars for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 18381–18390 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Khatri, I., Vedder, K., Peri, N., Ramanan, D., Hays, J.: I can’t believe it’s not scene flow! In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 242–257. Springer (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters pp

    Kim, J., Woo, J., Shin, U., Oh, J., Im, S.: Flow4D: Leveraging 4d voxel network for lidar scene flow estimation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters pp. 1–8 (2025).https: //doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2025.3542327 16 Q Zhang et al

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

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

    Kloukiniotis, A., Papandreou, A., Anagnostopoulos, C., Lalos, A., Kapsalas, P., Nguyen, D.V ., Moustakas, K.: Carlascenes: A synthetic dataset for odometry in autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4520–4528 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Li, S., Zhang, Q., Khatri, I., Vedder, K., Ramanan, D., Peri, N.: UniFlow: Towards zero-shot lidar scene flow for autonomous vehicles via cross-domain generalization (2025),https: //arxiv.org/abs/2511.18254

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    In: CVPR (2024)

    Lin, Y ., Caesar, H.: ICP-Flow: Lidar scene flow estimation with icp. In: CVPR (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Con- ference

    Lin, Y ., Wang, S., Nan, L., Kooij, J., Caesar, H.: V oteflow: Enforcing local rigidity in self- supervised scene flow. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Con- ference. pp. 17155–17164 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition

    Liu, J., Wang, G., Ye, W., Jiang, C., Han, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, G., Du, D., Wang, H.: Difflow3d: Toward robust uncertainty-aware scene flow estimation with iterative diffusion-based refine- ment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. pp. 15109–15119 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016),http://lmb.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/Publications/2016/ MIFDB16, arXiv:1512.02134

    Mayer, N., Ilg, E., Häusser, P., Fischer, P., Cremers, D., Dosovitskiy, A., Brox, T.: A large dataset to train convolutional networks for disparity, optical flow, and scene flow estimation. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016),http://lmb.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/Publications/2016/ MIFDB16, arXiv:1512.02134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Narasimhan, G.N., Vhavle, H., Vishvanatha, K.B., Reuther, J.: Aevascenes: A dataset and benchmark for fmcw lidar perception (2025),https://scenes.aeva.com/

    2025

  20. [20]

    NVIDIA: Isaac Sim (2024),https://github.com/isaac-sim/IsaacSim

    2024

  21. [21]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Pang, Z., Li, Z., Wang, N.: Simpletrack: Understanding and rethinking 3d multi-object track- ing. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 680–696. Springer (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    In: CVPR (2025)

    Ren, X., Shen, T., Huang, J., Ling, H., Lu, Y ., Nimier-David, M., Müller, T., Keller, A., Fi- dler, S., Gao, J.: Gen3c: 3d-informed world-consistent video generation with precise camera control. In: CVPR (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

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

    Sun, T., Segu, M., Postels, J., Wang, Y ., Van Gool, L., Schiele, B., Tombari, F., Yu, F.: Shift: a synthetic driving dataset for continuous multi-task domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 21371–21382 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    com / HDFGroup/hdf5

    The HDF Group: Hierarchical Data Format, version 5,https : / / github . com / HDFGroup/hdf5

  25. [25]

    In: ECCV (2024)

    Van Hoorick, B., Wu, R., Ozguroglu, E., Sargent, K., Liu, R., Tokmakov, P., Dave, A., Zheng, C., V ondrick, C.: Generative camera dolly: Extreme monocular dynamic novel view synthe- sis. In: ECCV (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2024)

    Vedder, K., Peri, N., Chodosh, N., Khatri, I., Eaton, E., Jayaraman, D., Ramanan, Y .L.D., Hays, J.: ZeroFlow: Fast Zero Label Scene Flow via Distillation. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Vedder, K., Peri, N., Khatri, I., Li, S., Eaton, E., Kocamaz, M.K., Wang, Y ., Yu, Z., Ramanan, D., Pehserl, J.: Neural eulerian scene flow fields (2025),https://openreview.net/ forum?id=0CieWy9ONY

    2025

  28. [28]

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

    Wang, J., Chen, M., Karaev, N., Vedaldi, A., Rupprecht, C., Novotný, D.: VGGT: visual geometry grounded transformer. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 5294–5306 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15615 (2023)

    Wang, Z., Chen, F., Lertniphonphan, K., Chen, S., Bao, J., Zheng, P., Zhang, J., Huang, K., Zhang, T.: Technical report for argoverse challenges on unified sensor-based detection, tracking, and forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15615 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Wilson, B., Qi, W., Agarwal, T., Lambert, J., Singh, J., et al.: Argoverse 2: Next genera- tion datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting. In: Proceedings of the Neural In- SynFlow: Scaling Up LiDAR Scene Flow Estimation with Synthetic Data 17 formation Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks (NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021) (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 53285–53316 (2024)

    Xie, D., Bi, S., Shu, Z., Zhang, K., Xu, Z., Zhou, Y ., Pirk, S., Kaufman, A., Sun, X., Tan, H.: Lrm-zero: Training large reconstruction models with synthesized data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 53285–53316 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Yang, D., Cai, X., Liu, Z., Jiang, W., Zhang, B., Yan, G., Gao, X., Liu, S., Shi, B.: Re- alistic rainy weather simulation for lidars in carla simulator. In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 951–957 (2024).https: //doi.org/10.1109/IROS58592.2024.10802036

    arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    In: The Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2024),https://openreview.net/forum?id= 1d2cLKeNgY

    Zhang, B., Cai, X., Yuan, J., Yang, D., Guo, J., Yan, X., Xia, R., Shi, B., Dou, M., Chen, T., Liu, S., Yan, J., Qiao, Y .: ResimAD: Zero-shot 3d domain transfer for autonomous driv- ing with source reconstruction and target simulation. In: The Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2024),https://openreview.net/forum?id= 1d2cLKeNgY

    2024

  34. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2026)

    Zhang, Q., Jiang, C., Zhu, X., Miao, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Andersson, O., Jensfelt, P.: TeFlow: Enabling multi-frame supervision for self-supervised feed-forward scene flow estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics41, 5896–5911 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2025.3619042

    Zhang, Q., Khoche, A., Yang, Y ., Ling, L., Mansouri, S.S., Andersson, O., Jensfelt, P.: HiMo: High-speed objects motion compensation in point cloud. IEEE Transactions on Robotics41, 5896–5911 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2025.3619042

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Zhang, Q., Yang, Y ., Fang, H., Geng, R., Jensfelt, P.: DeFlow: Decoder of scene flow network in autonomous driving. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 2105–2111 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA57147.2024. 10610278

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    Zhang, Q., Yang, Y ., Li, P., Andersson, O., Jensfelt, P.: SeFlow: A self-supervised scene flow method in autonomous driving. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). p. 353–369. Springer (2024).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73232- 4_20

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73232- 2024

  38. [38]

    In: The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems (2025)

    Zhang, Q., Zhu, X., Zhang, Y ., Cai, Y ., Andersson, O., Jensfelt, P.: DeltaFlow: An efficient multi-frame scene flow estimation method. In: The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36(2024)

    Zhang, Y ., Edstedt, J., Wandt, B., Forssén, P.E., Magnusson, M., Felsberg, M.: GMSF: Global matching scene flow. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36(2024)

    2024