Range-view (RV) based LiDAR diffusion has recently made huge strides towards 2D photo-realism. However, it neglects 3D geometry realism and often generates various RV artifacts such as depth bleeding and wavy surfaces. We design L3DR, a 3D-aware LiDAR Diffusion and Rectification framework that can regress and cancel RV artifacts in 3D space and restore local geometry accurately. Our theoretical and empirical analysis reveals that 3D models are inherently superior to 2D models in generating sharp and authentic boundaries. Leveraging such analysis, we design a 3D residual regression network that rectifies RV artifacts and achieves superb geometry realism by predicting point-level offsets in 3D space. On top of that, we design a Welsch Loss that helps focus on local geometry and ignore anomalous regions effectively. Extensive experiments over multiple benchmarks including KITTI, KITTI360, nuScenes and Waymo show that the proposed L3DR achieves state-of-the-art generation and superior geometry-realism consistently. In addition, L3DR is generally applicable to different LiDAR diffusion models with little computational overhead.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Empirical validation of Theorem 1 . The graph shows the distribution of ∥∇x∥ for GT, vanilla RV diffusion, and our rectified RV, including the corresponding Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) w.r.t. the GT.
Figure 3: The training pipeline of the proposed L3DR framework. In the LiDAR diffusion training stage, generated and ground-truth point cloud pairs are collected using semantic-conditioned LiDAR diffusion. In the residual regression training stage, such data pairs are employed to train a 3D network to remove RV artifacts present in the residuals to improve generation quality.
Figure 4: Visualization of two types of errors in RRN training data. While the generated point clouds ( c o l or ed ) approximate the GT ( gray ) in most of the regions with high-variance errors , i.e., RV artifacts as highlighted with green dotted lines, there are also regions with high-bias errors which impede training, including (1) shifted walls, (2) random points on the leaves where laser hits are hard to predict, and (3) isolated chunks with consistent depth error. These bias-dominated regions are harmful for RRN training.
Figure 5: The inference pipeline of the proposed L3DR.
Perceptual
Distributional
Task
Method
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ↓
MMD ×10(−4)↓
KITTI360 Unconditional
LiDARGAN [ 3 ]
183.4
168.1
0.272
4.74
LiDARVAE [ 3 ]
129.9
105.8
0.237
7.07
ProjectedGAN [ 36 ]
44.7
33.4
0.188
2.88
UltraLiDAR [ 47 ]
72.1
66.6
0.747
17.12
LiDARGen(1160s) [ 57 ]
39.2
33.4
0.188
2.88
Table 1: Benchmarking of unconditional generation on KITTI360 and semantic-conditioned generation on nuScenes and Waymo. For the semantic-conditioned experiments, RRN takes segmentation map as additional input for optimal performance. Gray areas highlight direct comparisons with the baselines.
Semantic-Map-Conditioned
Front-Image-Conditioned
Method
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ↓
MMD ×10(−4)↓
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ↓
MMD ×10(−4)↓
LiDARGen
31.7
30.1
0.130
5.18
-
-
-
-
LDM
21.3
20.3
0.088
3.73
35.9
26.5
0.26
3.80
LiDM
20.2
17.7
0.072
3.16
32.5
25.8
0.21
3.69
Ours
20.4
15.0
0.070
1.69
33.6
24.9
0.18
3.30
Δ Inc.
-1.0%
+15.3%
+2.8%
+46.5%
-3.4%
+3.5%
+12.2%
+10.6%
Table 2: Comparison of conditional LiDAR point cloud generation on SemanticKITTI and KITTI360. Gray areas highlight direct comparisons with the baseline, LiDM. ‘Ours-Sem’ denotes our method with segmentation input to the RRN.
Figure 6: Visualization of conditional generation on SemanticKITTI. Cyan regions highlight the improved RV artifacts from the diffusion-generated (i.e., denoised) data to our rectified data, such as depth bleeding and wavy surfaces.
Configurations
Perceptual
Statistical
Backbone
Loss
RRN Sem. Input
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ×10(−2)↓
MMD ×10(−5)↓
/ (baseline)
/
-
18.3
15.3
7.1
16.2
SPUNet
Welsch
-
16.4
12.1
6.7
16.7
SPUNet
MSE
-
26.3
25.1
7.0
12.6
SPUNet
Welsch
✓
12.5
10.7
6.7
15.0
PTV3
Welsch
-
17.7
13.9
6.8
17.2
Table 3: Ablation experiment on SemanticKITTI, including RRN backbone structure, loss function, semantic-map input to RRN, and a fair baseline using a 2D image Unet instead of a 3D UNet.
Method
Network
# Params (M)
Steps
Time (ms)
R2DM
Eff-UNet
31.10
50
579.83
LiDM
VQ-VAE, UNet
257.77
50
557.36
+Ours
SPUNET
+37.90
+1
+19.65
Table 4: Computational overhead on KITTI360. our method introduce very slight computational overhead over the baselines.
Figure 7: Visualization of unconditional generation on KITTI360. Red regions highlight the the improvements from the diffusion-generated (i.e., denoised) data to our rectified data.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Intuitive validation for Theorem 1 , i.e., 2D and 3D models have inherently different sensitivity to disturbances. (a) Adding large noises ( σ=5 m) does not hinder human understanding of image contents on RV, yet completely sets the point cloud into a mess. (b) Adding small noises ( σ=0.2 m) adds visible noises in the point cloud while retaining its spatial structure, but this noise scale is almost non-percievable in RV.
Configurations
Perceptual
Statistical
Backbone
Loss
RRN Sem. Input
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ×10(−2)↓
MMD ×10(−5)↓
/ (baseline)
/
-
11.7
13.1
11.6
21.5
SPUNet
Welsch
-
10.6
12.1
6.7
16.6
SPUNet
MSE
-
27.0
25.7
10.1
22.3
SPUNet
Welsch
✓
9.8
9.7
9.5
20.9
PTV3
Welsch
-
9.3
9.8
9.7
22.1
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation experiment on nuScenes, including RRN backbone structure, loss function and semantic-map input to RRN.
Configurations
Perceptual
Statistical
Backbone
Loss
RRN Sem. Input
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ×10(−2)↓
MMD ×10(−5)↓
/ (baseline)
/
-
11.8
12.4
9.5
13.4
SPUNet
Welsch
-
9.8
9.9
7.9
13.4
SPUNet
MSE
-
24.8
27.3
8.7
11.7
SPUNet
Welsch
✓
9.6
11.6
7.8
13.0
PTV3
Welsch
-
10.3
11.4
7.6
13.6
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation experiment on Waymo, including RRN backbone structure, loss function, and semantic-map input to RRN.
ν
Perceptual
Statistical
FSVD ↓
FPVD ↓
JSD ×10(−2)↓
MMD ×10(−5)↓
/ (baseline)
18.3
15.3
7.1
16.2
0.01
18.1
14.9
6.9
16.2
0.05
17.9
14.3
6.9
16.3
0.1
17.9
13.4
7.0
16.3
0.5
17.7
13.9
6.8
17.2
Appendix
Table 7: Parameter tuning experiment of ν with PTV3 on SemanticKITTI.
RRN Training Data
Test Data
C-D ↓
F-score ↑
RMSE ↓
MedAE ↓
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Val (3 frames × 7 scenes)
Val (1 frame × 7 scenes)
0.0557
0.966
1.64
0.00647
0.0233
0.978
33.9
None (GS-LiDAR original)
Val (1 frame × 7 scenes)
0.0560
0.963
1.64
0.00832
0.0231
0.978
34.0
Train (46 frames × 7 scenes)
Val (4 frames × 7 scenes)
0.0473
0.966
2.46
0.0171
0.0651
0.776
30.3
None (GS-LiDAR original)
Val (4 frames × 7 scenes)
0.0480
0.961
2.21
0.0156
0.0518
0.818
31.2
Appendix
Table 8: RRN performance on GS-LiDAR reconstructed LiDAR data under different training and test data configurations.
• Natural modeling of LiDAR’s projective structure
BEV Diffusion (e.g., UltraLiDAR)
• Supports manipulation of BEV grid • Local spatial control with partial point input
• Poor projection realism
• Limited multimodal control
• Still single-frame
Appendix
Table 9: Comparative overview of existing genres for LiDAR point cloud generation.
Figure 9: Visualization of conditional generation on nuScenes. Our results exhibit better geometry-realism such as sharp borders, flat surfaces, less noise points and reduced depth bleeding.
Figure 10: Visualization of conditional generation on Waymo Open Dataset. Our results exhibit better geometry-realism with reduced depth bleeding, flattened surfaces, rectified corners and reduced noise points.
LiDAR perception is severely limited by the distance-dependent sparsity of distant objects. While diffusion models can recover dense geometry, they suffer from prohibitive latency and physical hallucinations manifesting as ghost points. We propose Scanline-Consistent Range-Aware Diffusion, a framework that treats densification as probabilistic refinement rather than generation. By leveraging Partial Diffusion (SDEdit) on a coarse prior, we achieve high-fidelity results in just 156ms. Our novel Ray-Consistency loss and Negative Ray Augmentation enforce sensor physics to suppress artifacts. Our method achieves state-of-the-art results on KITTI-360 and nuScenes, directly boosting off-the-shelf 3D detectors without retraining. Code will be made available.
Zeping Zhang, Robert Laganière
VIVA Research Lab, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Transferring the rich priors of large 2D foundation models to sparse 3D LiDAR remains challenging, as training native 3D foundation models at comparable scale is limited by data and annotation scarcity. We introduce a LiDAR-conditioned diffusion model trained on pseudo-labels from off-the-shelf 2D foundation models. The model supports multiple output modalities, including depth, semantic segmentation and instance prediction, selectable via a textual task prompt. Because the model is conditioned on LiDAR, both its outputs and its intermediate UNet features can be projected back onto the input point cloud, enabling analysis of a 3D representation learned entirely under 2D supervision. We study this representation directly in point-cloud space, explicitly excluding raw spatial coordinates to isolate feature content from projection geometry. Linear probes recover up to ~23% Mean Intersection over Union (MIoU) on 3D semantic classes, compared to ~3.5% for a matched Gaussian-noise control, indicating substantial non-trivial structure. Pairwise cosine similarity across modality-specific feature streams reveals a layered organization. Early encoder layers remain weakly aligned across modalities while individually decodable, intermediate layers converge toward a shared representation, and decoder layers re-specialize toward task-specific outputs. These findings indicate that LiDAR-conditioned diffusion models can induce structured 3D representations from 2D supervision alone, with a modality-dependent manifold that locally unifies near a shared bottleneck. This positions diffusion as a viable mechanism for transferring large-scale 2D priors into sparse 3D domains.
Samed Doğan, Nico Leuze, Alfred Schöttl
Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology Munich University of Applied Sciences Munich, Bavaria 80335
Generating LiDAR point clouds from multi-view camera images is a valuable task with applications in controllable data synthesis, cross-modal simulation and various perception tasks. However, most existing methods are not specifically designed for this task, and the quality of their generated LiDAR remains limited. Moreover, these methods typically focus only on semantic cues in images or generate LiDAR from a monocular camera image. In this work, we introduce LiFi (LiDAR From images), a dedicated framework for generating visually and geometrically aligned LiDAR scenes from multi-view camera images. LiFi guides the latent diffusion process through two complementary branches: geometry and semantics. The geometry branch constructs scene features from images through a reverse sampling algorithm and an uncertainty-aware geometric encoder combined with DepthAnything3, whereas the semantic branch provides high-level semantic representations via a cross-view interaction module. We further introduce a dual-branch balanced classifier-free guidance (CFG) strategy, which enhances the model's conditional generation capability while preserving the independent learning and collaborative controllability of the two branches. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LiFi outperforms state-of-the-art methods in generating high-fidelity LiDAR scenes. The code will be publicly available at: https://github.com/szzhou88/LiFi.
Sizhuo Zhou, Xiaosong Jia, Fanrui Zhang +10
University of Science and Technology of China · Shanghai Innovation Institute · Fudan University +1