Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

MObI: Multimodal Object Inpainting Using Diffusion Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MObI's central claim is that a single diffusion model can insert objects into both camera images and lidar range views at a 3D location given by a bounding box, and that this joint conditioning yields realistic, scene-consistent results.

desk verdict Genuinely new joint camera-lidar object inpainting with a solid geometry check, but the realism numbers need a cleaner evaluation before you should trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03173 v2 pith:ITUA3B5Q submitted 2025-01-06 cs.CV

Alexandru Buburuzan , Anuj Sharma , John Redford , Puneet K. Dokania , Romain Mueller This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multimodalobjectinpaintingdiffusionmodelscamera-lidargeneration3Dboundingboxconditioningrangeviewautonomousdrivingdatareference-basedinsertion
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

This paper introduces MObI, a diffusion-based method for inpainting objects into driving scenes jointly in camera images and lidar range views. The central claim is that a single model, conditioned on one reference RGB image, a projected 3D bounding box, and scene context, can generate a semantically consistent object in both modalities at a specified location. If true, this gives a controllable way to create counterfactual driving scenes, such as replacing a car with a pedestrian at the same 3D position, without collecting new real-world data. The authors argue that conditioning on the 3D box, rather than only a 2D edit mask, is what makes placement and scale accurate, and they support this with realism metrics and detection experiments showing an off-the-shelf detector still finds the reinserted objects.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a latent diffusion model inherited from reference-based inpainting and fine-tuned so that camera images and lidar range views are encoded into a shared latent space and denoised together. Three conditioning paths are added: Fourier-encoded projected 3D bounding box tokens processed by a small MLP; a gated cross-attention adapter that injects box and reference tokens into the denoising U-Net with zero-initialised gates; and modality-dependent cross-attention layers that let camera tokens attend to lidar tokens and vice versa within the same batch. A key engineering piece is the lidar range-view autoencoder: a pretrained image VAE adapted through average-pooled downsampling, intensity and depth normalisation, and fine-tuned input and output residual blocks, which lets the image-based diffusion machinery operate on lidar range views.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is to reselect the model checkpoint on a held-out validation split disjoint from the 200-image test set and recompute the realism metrics; if the method no longer beats the reference-based baseline on FID and LPIPS, the realism claim is falsified. A second check would be removing the bounding box token at inference and measuring whether detection alignment drops, which would test whether the box conditioning is actually doing the geometric work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MObI extends reference-based image inpainting so that one diffusion model generates camera and lidar outputs jointly from a single reference image and a 3D bounding box. The model is trained in a self-supervised way by masking out the object region and predicting the full scene conditioned on the reference, the box, and both modalities' contexts. At inference it inserts the generated object patch back into the original camera image and lidar range view, and the paper reports that on a 200-object nuScenes validation set the 512-resolution model beats the reference-based baseline [65] on FID, LPIPS, and CLIP-I for camera reinsertion, while also producing low lidar depth and intensity perceptual distances. Detection results with an off-the-shelf camera-lidar detector show that reinserted objects remain detectable with small translation, scale, and orientation errors, which the paper reads as evidence that the 3D box conditioning keeps geometry accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains over the baseline assume that choosing the final checkpoint by FID on the same 200-image test set that is then used to report FID and LPIPS does not bias the comparison; if checkpoint selection has overfit this set, the improvements would shrink or vanish on a truly unseen set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Object insertion and replacement are possible with a single reference photo and a 3D box, so the same framework covers reinsertion, cross-domain replacement across weather and time-of-day, novel-view synthesis, and object deletion via an empty reference.
  • Because the model is conditioned on a projected 3D bounding box rather than only a mask, the generated object inherits the box's position, scale, and depth, which is what makes an off-the-shelf camera-lidar detector still detect the reinserted object.
  • Generating camera and lidar jointly with cross-modal attention yields better camera realism than camera-only inpainting at the same resolution in the paper's tables, and the low lidar depth and intensity perceptual distances establish an initial baseline for lidar object inpainting metrics.
  • The approach can apply to classes not seen during training, though the paper reports lower quality and occasional reverts to familiar classes for very out-of-domain references.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is explicit multi-frame consistency: conditioning on all boxes in a scene or enforcing temporal coherence across frames could prevent the background-object modifications that currently happen when an edit mask overlaps another object.
  • If the realism results hold under a clean checkpoint-selection protocol, MObI would offer a low-cost way to generate hard negative and counterfactual traffic scenes for testing detector robustness, including weather and lighting shifts that are rare in real logs.
  • The bounding-box conditioning idea could transfer to modalities beyond camera and lidar, such as radar or occupancy grids, since the conditioning tokens are modality-agnostic and only the encoder and decoder would need adaptation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents MObI, a latent diffusion framework that jointly inpaints camera images and lidar range views, conditioned on a single reference RGB image, a 3D bounding box, and scene context. The method extends Paint-by-Example with a projected 3D bounding box encoder and a gated cross-modal attention module, and adapts a Stable Diffusion VAE to the lidar range-view modality through normalization and fine-tuning. Experiments on nuScenes cover object reinsertion and replacement, with camera realism metrics (FID, LPIPS, CLIP-I), proposed lidar realism metrics (D-LPIPS, I-LPIPS), ablations of the bounding box and cross-attention components, and a downstream 3D object detection evaluation with BEVFusion on reinserted objects. The central claims are that a single diffusion model can generate coherent camera and lidar object appearances, that 3D bounding box conditioning improves spatial alignment and realism, and that the resulting counterfactual multimodal scenes are usable by an off-the-shelf detector.

Significance. The problem is well motivated: multimodal counterfactual data for autonomous driving testing requires controllable and realistic object insertion, and existing methods either lack 3D control or do not jointly handle camera and lidar. MObI's combination of reference-based inpainting, 3D box conditioning, and joint camera-lidar generation is a reasonable contribution, and the detection evaluation on reinserted objects is a direct and valuable test of the conditioning mechanism. If the quantitative realism claims are robust, the method would be a useful baseline for future multimodal inpainting work. However, as detailed below, the lidar realism numbers and the FID-based checkpoint selection currently leave the strength of the quantitative claims in question. The paper is empirical and does not suffer from circular reasoning; the self-citation [15] is not load-bearing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4 and Table 2] The final model is selected by FID on a test set of 200 pre-selected images (Sec. 2.4), and Table 2 reports FID on reinsertion and replacement evaluation sets that appear to be the same or an overlapping set. This selection procedure makes the reported FID improvements over PbE optimistically biased, because the model was chosen to minimize FID on the evaluation data. The paper should either use a separate validation set for checkpoint selection, or report Table 2 on a held-out set that was not used for model selection, and state explicitly which images were used in each step.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Table 1] The lidar realism metrics D-LPIPS and I-LPIPS are computed on the full diffusion output after the range decoder, compared against the original range-view patch. Table 1 shows that the adapted range autoencoder alone already reconstructs object masks with a median depth error of 0.037 m and intensity MSE of 2.009, meaning the VAE component contributes substantially to the final range appearance. Without a control that isolates the VAE reconstruction error from the diffusion sampling error (for example, reporting the same LPIPS distances for the VAE reconstruction of the ground-truth object patch, with and without the diffusion step), the excellent lidar scores in Table 2 cannot be attributed to the diffusion model, and the central claim of joint camera-lidar generation is not quantitatively established for lidar.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, FID/LPIPS definitions] The description of the ground-truth patches used for FID and LPIPS is ambiguous: 'extended patches around the object from the final composited images, compared to the real patches' does not specify how the extended region is defined, how the patch coordinates align between the composited output and the real scene, or how the tracked-reference setting (where the reference comes from a different timestamp and the object may differ in pose or lighting) maps to a 'ground-truth patch'. This ambiguity affects the reproducibility of Table 2 and the fairness of the comparison with PbE and copy&paste, since all methods are evaluated on the same patches only if the patch construction is well-defined and consistent.
  4. [Table 2 and Sec. 3.2] The realism results are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. Given that the evaluation uses only 200 objects and the claims are comparative (MObI vs. PbE; bbox conditioning vs. not), the paper should include bootstrap confidence intervals over objects for the main realism metrics, so the reader can judge whether the differences are meaningful rather than noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] Typo: 'bonding box' should be 'bounding box'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The cross-domain reference definition contains an apparent typo: '(rainy(Id) ≠ rainy(Id) or night(Is) ≠ night(Id))' should presumably be '(rainy(Is) ≠ rainy(Id) or night(Is) ≠ night(Id))'.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 qualitative results] The text says 'strong coherence (lightning, weather conditions, occlusions, etc.)'; 'lightning' should be 'lighting'.
  4. [Fig. S1 and S2 captions] The captions contain the typo 'seperate' instead of 'separate'.
  5. [Sec. 3.3 caption] The caption of Fig. 6 says 'Left:' twice; the second occurrence should be 'Right:'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; empirical benchmarks are external and the sole self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper does not present a formal derivation chain; it is an empirical fine-tuning and evaluation paper. The central contributions—joint camera-lidar latent diffusion, 3D-box conditioning, and cross-modal attention—are trained with a self-supervised denoising loss and compared against external methods (Paint-by-Example [65], copy-and-paste) and an off-the-shelf BEVFusion detector. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the diffusion loss, classifier-free guidance scale, and augmentation choices are disclosed as training details rather than presented as derived results. The only self-citation is reference [15] (Lift-Attend-Splat), which appears in the supplementary related-work discussion of sensor fusion and is not used to justify any architectural choice or to forbid alternatives. Two evaluation caveats are soundness issues rather than circularity: (i) the final checkpoint is selected by FID on a 200-image test set (Sec. 2.4), and the same style of reinsertion FID is later reported in Table 2, so the reported FID is an optimistically selected estimate rather than an independent prediction; and (ii) lidar realism metrics measure the full VAE-plus-diffusion output, so the diffusion contribution is not isolated from the autoencoder reconstruction shown in Table 1. Neither reduces the reported result to its input by construction: the model is not defined as the minimizer of the Paint-by-Example comparison, and the detector evaluation is external. Accordingly, no circular steps are identified; the score reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

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

The method is a fine-tuned diffusion model; its behavior is shaped by many hand-chosen hyperparameters and pretrained components. The paper does not derive any predictive law from first principles, so the ledger mainly records the ad hoc choices that influence the reported performance.

free parameters (6)
  • Intensity CDF parameter lambda = 4
    Chosen experimentally in Sec. B.2 to normalize lidar intensity to [-1,1]; directly affects reconstructed intensity values and is not derived from data statistics.
  • Depth normalization alpha = not reported
    Controls the scaling of depth around the object bounding box in Sec. B.2; hand-selected and not ablated.
  • Depth normalization boundaries (mind, maxd) = object bounding box depth +/-10%
    Defines the piecewise linear depth mapping in Sec. B.2; tied to the specific bounding box and changes object-level depth reconstruction.
  • Reference sampling Beta(4,1) = alpha=4, beta=1
    Bias toward temporally distant references (Sec. B.3, Fig. S6); no ablation showing sensitivity; used during training only.
  • Object sample selection thresholds = >=64 lidar points, >=100x100 px, IoU<=50%, visibility>=70%
    Filters in Sec. 2.4 restrict the domain of the method; the thresholds are arbitrary and affect which objects are inserted and evaluated.
  • Empty box augmentation rate = 30%
    Fraction of training samples drawn from empty-box database (Sec. B.3); chosen without ablation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained CLIP encoder provides sufficient object identity and appearance information for reference-guided inpainting.
    Used for reference encoding in Sec. 2.1; the paper itself notes CLIP lacks fine-detail preservation, and no comparison with DINOv2 is performed.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained Stable Diffusion VAE can be adapted to lidar range images while preserving task-relevant structure.
    Three modifications (average pooling, normalization, adapters) are empirically shown to improve reconstruction in Table 1, but the fundamental transferability is assumed.
  • domain assumption Paint-by-Example weights are a good initialization for joint camera-lidar inpainting.
    The method directly fine-tunes PbE (Sec. 2.2); no comparison against training from scratch is given.
  • domain assumption FID, LPIPS, and CLIP-I are valid proxies for perceptual realism of inserted objects.
    Standard metrics adopted without validation against human judgment in this specific editing setting.
  • domain assumption The lidar range view projection and inverse transformation are lossless enough for training and evaluation.
    The paper states the transformation is lossless except for sweep-boundary overlaps (Sec. B.2); point-to-pixel assignment is not injective at boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MObI: Multimodal Object Inpainting Using Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITUA3B5Q

@misc{pith2026250103173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MObI: Multimodal Object Inpainting Using Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITUA3B5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03173}
}
read the original abstract

Safety-critical applications, such as autonomous driving, require extensive multimodal data for rigorous testing. Methods based on synthetic data are gaining prominence due to the cost and complexity of gathering real-world data but require a high degree of realism and controllability in order to be useful. This paper introduces MObI, a novel framework for Multimodal Object Inpainting that leverages a diffusion model to create realistic and controllable object inpaintings across perceptual modalities, demonstrated for both camera and lidar simultaneously. Using a single reference RGB image, MObI enables objects to be seamlessly inserted into existing multimodal scenes at a 3D location specified by a bounding box, while maintaining semantic consistency and multimodal coherence. Unlike traditional inpainting methods that rely solely on edit masks, our 3D bounding box conditioning gives objects accurate spatial positioning and realistic scaling. As a result, our approach can be used to insert novel objects flexibly into multimodal scenes, providing significant advantages for testing perception models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03173 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method can inpaint objects with a high degree of realism and controllability. Left: object inpainting methods based on edit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MObI architecture and training procedure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of object inpainting using MObI in the following settings: replacement (rows 1–4), insertion (row 5), and deletion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our method can generate multiple novel views from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial compositing of camera-lidar object inpainting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Camera-lidar detection performance of an off-the-shelf BEVFusion [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Lift-attend-splat: Bird’s-eye-view camera-lidar fusion using transformers, 2024

    James Gunn, Zygmunt Lenyk, Anuj Sharma, Andrea Donati, Alexandru Buburuzan, John Redford, and Romain Mueller. Lift-attend-splat: Bird’s-eye-view camera-lidar fusion using transformers, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Men- sch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:23716–23736,

  3. [2]

    Dynamiccity: Large-scale lidar gener- ation from dynamic scenes, 2024

    Hengwei Bian, Lingdong Kong, Haozhe Xie, Liang Pan, Yu Qiao, and Ziwei Liu. Dynamiccity: Large-scale lidar gener- ation from dynamic scenes, 2024. 2, 1

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Gi- ancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11621–11631, 2020. 4, 7, 8, 2

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Just add $100 more: Augmenting nerf-based pseudo-lidar point cloud for resolving class-imbalance problem

    Mincheol Chang, Siyeong Lee, Jinkyu Kim, and Namil Kim. Just add $100 more: Augmenting nerf-based pseudo-lidar point cloud for resolving class-imbalance problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11573, 2024. 1

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09481, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Geosim: Realistic video sim- ulation via geometry-aware composition for self-driving

    Yun Chen, Frieda Rong, Shivam Duggal, Shenlong Wang, Xinchen Yan, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Shangjie Xue, Ersin Yumer, and Raquel Urtasun. Geosim: Realistic video sim- ulation via geometry-aware composition for self-driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 7230–7240, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Placing objects in context via in- painting for out-of-distribution segmentation

    Pau de Jorge, Riccardo V olpi, Puneet K Dokania, Philip HS Torr, and Gr´egory Rogez. Placing objects in context via in- painting for out-of-distribution segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16392, 2024. 4

    arXiv 2024

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    Cut, paste and learn: Surprisingly easy synthesis for instance de- tection

    Debidatta Dwibedi, Ishan Misra, and Martial Hebert. Cut, paste and learn: Surprisingly easy synthesis for instance de- tection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1301–1310, 2017. 7, 1

    2017

  2. [9]

    Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Robin Rombach, and Bjorn Ommer. Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12873–12883, 2021. 3

    2021

  3. [10]

    Magicdrive: Street view generation with diverse 3d geometry control

    Ruiyuan Gao, Kai Chen, Enze Xie, Lanqing Hong, Zhenguo Li, Dit-Yan Yeung, and Qiang Xu. Magicdrive: Street view generation with diverse 3d geometry control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02601, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 8, 1

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Multitest: Physical-aware object insertion for testing multi-sensor fusion perception systems

    Xinyu Gao, Zhijie Wang, Yang Feng, Lei Ma, Zhenyu Chen, and Baowen Xu. Multitest: Physical-aware object insertion for testing multi-sensor fusion perception systems. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering, page 1–13. ACM, 2024. 1

    2024

  5. [12]

    Synthesizing training data for object de- tection in indoor scenes

    Georgios Georgakis, Arsalan Mousavian, Alexander C Berg, and Jana Kosecka. Synthesizing training data for object de- tection in indoor scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.07836,

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Sim- ple copy-paste is a strong data augmentation method for in- stance segmentation

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Yin Cui, Aravind Srinivas, Rui Qian, Tsung- Yi Lin, Ekin D Cubuk, Quoc V Le, and Barret Zoph. Sim- ple copy-paste is a strong data augmentation method for in- stance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recogni...

    2021

  7. [14]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 1

    2014

  8. [16]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 5

    2017

  9. [17]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  11. [19]

    Rangeldm: Fast realistic lidar point cloud generation, 2024

    Qianjiang Hu, Zhimin Zhang, and Wei Hu. Rangeldm: Fast realistic lidar point cloud generation, 2024. 2, 1

    2024

  12. [20]

    Subjectdrive: Scaling generative data in autonomous driving via subject control, 2024

    Binyuan Huang, Yuqing Wen, Yucheng Zhao, Yaosi Hu, Yingfei Liu, Fan Jia, Weixin Mao, Tiancai Wang, Chi Zhang, Chang Wen Chen, Zhenzhong Chen, and Xiangyu Zhang. Subjectdrive: Scaling generative data in autonomous driving via subject control, 2024. 2, 1

    2024

  13. [21]

    Auto-encoding vari- ational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding vari- ational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 2, 3, 5

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Logen: Toward lidar object generation by point dif- fusion

    Ellington Kirby, Mickael Chen, Renaud Marlet, and Nermin Samet. Logen: Toward lidar object generation by point dif- fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07385, 2024. 2, 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Challenges in au- tonomous vehicle testing and validation

    Philip Koopman and Michael Wagner. Challenges in au- tonomous vehicle testing and validation. SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety, 4(1):15–24, 2016. 1

    2016

  17. [25]

    Efros, and Krishna Kumar Singh

    Sumith Kulal, Tim Brooks, Alex Aiken, Jiajun Wu, Jimei Yang, Jingwan Lu, Alexei A. Efros, and Krishna Kumar Singh. Putting people in their place: Affordance-aware hu- man insertion into scenes, 2023. 1

    2023

  18. [26]

    Lift3d: Synthesize 3d training data by lift- ing 2d gan to 3d generative radiance field

    Leheng Li, Qing Lian, Luozhou Wang, Ningning Ma, and Ying-Cong Chen. Lift3d: Synthesize 3d training data by lift- ing 2d gan to 3d generative radiance field. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 332–341, 2023. 1

    2023

  19. [27]

    Drivingdif- fusion: Layout-guided multi-view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model

    Xiaofan Li, Yifu Zhang, and Xiaoqing Ye. Drivingdif- fusion: Layout-guided multi-view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07771, 2023. 2, 8, 1 9

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Exploring geometric consistency for monocular 3d object detection

    Qing Lian, Botao Ye, Ruijia Xu, Weilong Yao, and Tong Zhang. Exploring geometric consistency for monocular 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1685–1694, 2022. 1

    2022

  21. [29]

    Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework, 2022

    Tingting Liang, Hongwei Xie, Kaicheng Yu, Zhongyu Xia, Zhiwei Lin, Yongtao Wang, Tao Tang, Bing Wang, and Zhi Tang. Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework, 2022. 1

    2022

  22. [30]

    Drive-1-to-3: En- riching diffusion priors for novel view synthesis of real vehi- cles

    Chuang Lin, Bingbing Zhuang, Shanlin Sun, Ziyu Jiang, Jianfei Cai, and Manmohan Chandraker. Drive-1-to-3: En- riching diffusion priors for novel view synthesis of real vehi- cles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14494, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    St-gan: Spatial transformer generative adversarial networks for image compositing

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Ersin Yumer, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, and Simon Lucey. St-gan: Spatial transformer generative adversarial networks for image compositing. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9455–9464, 2018. 1

    2018

  24. [32]

    Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.09778, 2022

    Luping Liu, Yi Ren, Zhijie Lin, and Zhou Zhao. Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.09778, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 7

    2021

  26. [34]

    Bevfusion: Multi- task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view repre- sentation

    Zhijian Liu, Haotian Tang, Alexander Amini, Xinyu Yang, Huizi Mao, Daniela L Rus, and Song Han. Bevfusion: Multi- task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view repre- sentation. In 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 2774–2781. ...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Wovogen: World volume-aware diffusion for con- trollable multi-camera driving scene generation

    Jiachen Lu, Ze Huang, Zeyu Yang, Jiahui Zhang, and Li Zhang. Wovogen: World volume-aware diffusion for con- trollable multi-camera driving scene generation. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision , pages 329–345. Springer, 2025. 8

    2025

  28. [36]

    Object 3dit: Language-guided 3d-aware image editing

    Oscar Michel, Anand Bhattad, Eli VanderBilt, Ranjay Kr- ishna, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Tanmay Gupta. Object 3dit: Language-guided 3d-aware image editing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    Simple open-vocabulary object detection

    Matthias Minderer, Alexey Gritsenko, Austin Stone, Maxim Neumann, Dirk Weissenborn, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Aravindh Mahendran, Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Zhuoran Shen, et al. Simple open-vocabulary object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 728–755. S...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Lidar data synthe- sis with denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Kazuto Nakashima and Ryo Kurazume. Lidar data synthe- sis with denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 14724–14731. IEEE, 2024. 5

    2024

  31. [39]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Diffusion handles enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting ac- tivations to 3d

    Karran Pandey, Paul Guerrero, Matheus Gadelha, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, Karan Singh, and Niloy J Mitra. Diffusion handles enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting ac- tivations to 3d. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ,...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Towards realistic scene generation with lidar diffusion models, 2024

    Haoxi Ran, Vitor Guizilini, and Yue Wang. Towards realistic scene generation with lidar diffusion models, 2024. 2, 5, 1

    2024

  35. [43]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2, 3, 5

    2022

  36. [44]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, pa...

    2015

  37. [45]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2250...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Jacobs, and Shlomi Fruchter

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Neal Wadhwa, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, David E. Jacobs, and Shlomi Fruchter. Magic insert: Style-aware drag-and-drop, 2024. 1

    2024

  39. [47]

    Genmm: Geometrically and temporally consistent multi- modal data generation for video and lidar

    Bharat Singh, Viveka Kulharia, Luyu Yang, Avinash Ravichandran, Ambrish Tyagi, and Ashish Shrivastava. Genmm: Geometrically and temporally consistent multi- modal data generation for video and lidar. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10722, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015. 2

    2015

  41. [49]

    Object- stitch: Object compositing with diffusion model

    Yizhi Song, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Scott Cohen, Brian Price, Jianming Zhang, Soo Ye Kim, and Daniel Aliaga. Object- stitch: Object compositing with diffusion model. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18310–18319, 2023. 1

    2023

  42. [50]

    Text2street: Controllable text-to-image gen- eration for street views

    Jinming Su, Songen Gu, Yiting Duan, Xingyue Chen, and Junfeng Luo. Text2street: Controllable text-to-image gen- eration for street views. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04504 ,

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    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. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14895–14904, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  44. [52]

    Pointaugmenting: Cross-modal augmentation for 3d object 10 detection

    Chunwei Wang, Chao Ma, Ming Zhu, and Xiaokang Yang. Pointaugmenting: Cross-modal augmentation for 3d object 10 detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 11794– 11803, 2021. 7, 1

    2021

  45. [53]

    Cadsim: Robust and scalable in-the- wild 3d reconstruction for controllable sensor simulation

    Jingkang Wang, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Yun Chen, Ze Yang, Ioan Andrei Bˆarsan, Anqi Joyce Yang, Wei-Chiu Ma, and Raquel Urtasun. Cadsim: Robust and scalable in-the- wild 3d reconstruction for controllable sensor simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01447, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Diffusion models are geometry critics: Single image 3d editing using pre-trained diffusion priors

    Ruicheng Wang, Jianfeng Xiang, Jiaolong Yang, and Xin Tong. Diffusion models are geometry critics: Single image 3d editing using pre-trained diffusion priors. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 441–458. Springer,

  47. [55]

    Wayve. PRISM-1. https://wayve.ai/thinking/ prism-1/, 2024. Last accessed: 14.11.2024. 1

    2024

  48. [56]

    Editable scene simulation for autonomous driving via collaborative llm-agents

    Yuxi Wei, Zi Wang, Yifan Lu, Chenxin Xu, Changxing Liu, Hao Zhao, Siheng Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. Editable scene simulation for autonomous driving via collaborative llm-agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15077– 15...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving

    Yuqing Wen, Yucheng Zhao, Yingfei Liu, Fan Jia, Yanhui Wang, Chong Luo, Chi Zhang, Tiancai Wang, Xiaoyan Sun, and Xiangyu Zhang. Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16813, 2023. 2, 8

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Objectdrop: Bootstrap- ping counterfactuals for photorealistic object removal and in- sertion, 2024

    Daniel Winter, Matan Cohen, Shlomi Fruchter, Yael Pritch, Alex Rav-Acha, and Yedid Hoshen. Objectdrop: Bootstrap- ping counterfactuals for photorealistic object removal and in- sertion, 2024. 1

    2024

  51. [59]

    Drivescape: To- wards high-resolution controllable multi-view driving video generation, 2024

    Wei Wu, Xi Guo, Weixuan Tang, Tingxuan Huang, Chiyu Wang, Dongyue Chen, and Chenjing Ding. Drivescape: To- wards high-resolution controllable multi-view driving video generation, 2024. 2, 8, 1

    2024

  52. [60]

    Neural assets: 3d-aware multi-object scene synthesis with image diffusion models

    Ziyi Wu, Yulia Rubanova, Rishabh Kabra, Drew A Hud- son, Igor Gilitschenski, Yusuf Aytar, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Kelsey R Allen, and Thomas Kipf. Neural assets: 3d-aware multi-object scene synthesis with image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09292, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Synthetic lidar point cloud generation using deep gen- erative models for improved driving scene object recogni- tion

    Zhengkang Xiang, Zexian Huang, and Kourosh Khoshel- ham. Synthetic lidar point cloud generation using deep gen- erative models for improved driving scene object recogni- tion. Image and Vision Computing, 150:105207, 2024. 1

    2024

  54. [62]

    X-drive: Cross-modality consis- tent multi-sensor data synthesis for driving scenarios

    Yichen Xie, Chenfeng Xu, Chensheng Peng, Shuqi Zhao, Nhat Ho, Alexander T Pham, Mingyu Ding, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Wei Zhan. X-drive: Cross-modality consis- tent multi-sensor data synthesis for driving scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01123, 2024. 2, 4

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ultralidar: Learning compact representations for lidar completion and generation, 2023

    Yuwen Xiong, Wei-Chiu Ma, Jingkang Wang, and Raquel Urtasun. Ultralidar: Learning compact representations for lidar completion and generation, 2023. 2, 1

    2023

  56. [64]

    Second: Sparsely embed- ded convolutional detection

    Yan Yan, Yuxing Mao, and Bo Li. Second: Sparsely embed- ded convolutional detection. Sensors, 18(10):3337, 2018. 1

    2018

  57. [65]

    Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els

    Binxin Yang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18381–18391,

  58. [66]

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

    Kairui Yang, Enhui Ma, Jibin Peng, Qing Guo, Di Lin, and Kaicheng Yu. Bevcontrol: Accurately controlling street- view elements with multi-perspective consistency via bev sketch layout. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01661, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 1389–1399, 2023. 1

    2023

  60. [68]

    Image sculpting: Precise ob- ject editing with 3d geometry control

    Jiraphon Yenphraphai, Xichen Pan, Sainan Liu, Daniele Panozzo, and Saining Xie. Image sculpting: Precise ob- ject editing with 3d geometry control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4241–4251, 2024. 2

    2024

  61. [69]

    Customnet: Zero-shot object customization with variable-viewpoints in text-to-image dif- fusion models

    Ziyang Yuan, Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Chun Yuan, and Ying Shan. Customnet: Zero-shot object customization with variable-viewpoints in text-to-image dif- fusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19784, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Cutmix: Regu- larization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features

    Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. Cutmix: Regu- larization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, pages 6023–6032, 2019. 1

    2019

  63. [71]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 4, 1

    2023

  64. [72]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 5

    2018

  65. [73]

    Explor- ing data augmentation for multi-modality 3d object detec- tion

    Wenwei Zhang, Zhe Wang, and Chen Change Loy. Explor- ing data augmentation for multi-modality 3d object detec- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12741, 2020. 7, 1

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Scene-conditional 3d object stylization and compo- sition

    Jinghao Zhou, Tomas Jakab, Philip Torr, and Christian Rup- precht. Scene-conditional 3d object stylization and compo- sition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12419, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Learning to generate realistic lidar point clouds, 2022

    Vlas Zyrianov, Xiyue Zhu, and Shenlong Wang. Learning to generate realistic lidar point clouds, 2022. 2, 5, 1 11 MObI: Multimodal Object Inpainting Using Diffusion Models Supplementary Material A. Extended Related Work Multimodal data is crucial for ensuring safety in au- tono...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.