Scene flow estimation is an extremely important task in computer vision to support the perception of dynamic changes in the scene. For robust scene flow, learning-based approaches have recently achieved impressive results using either image-based or LiDAR-based modalities. However, these methods have tended to focus on the use of a single modality. To tackle these problems, we present a deep learning architecture, SF3D-RGB, that enables sparse scene flow estimation using 2D monocular images and 3D point clouds (e.g., acquired by LiDAR) as inputs. Our architecture is an end-to-end model that first encodes information from each modality into features and fuses them together. Then, the fused features enhance a graph matching module for better and more robust mapping matrix computation to generate an initial scene flow. Finally, a residual scene flow module further refines the initial scene flow. Our model is designed to strike a balance between accuracy and efficiency. Furthermore, experiments show that our proposed method outperforms single-modality methods and achieves better scene flow accuracy on real-world datasets while using fewer parameters compared to other state-of-the-art methods with fusion.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SF3D-RGB consists of a Pointwise Feature Extraction (FE) module, a Feature Pyramid Network (FPN), a Fusion Module (FM), a Graph Matching Module (GM), and a Refinement Module (RF). We denote the feature extraction convolutions by g(⋅) .
Figure 2: Pointwise Feature Extraction Module based on graph convolution.
Method
Modality
Evaluated
Domain
FT3D
Model size and runtime
EPE3D
EPE2D
P
R
TFLOPS
Device
Points
[m] ↓
[px] ↓
[M] ↓
[ms] ↓
PWOC-3D Saxena et al. (2019)
Stereo only
all
2D
–
6.97
8.05
130
11.34
GTX1080Ti
LiDAR-Flow Battrawy et al. (2019)
Stereo+LiDAR
5000
2D
–
29.97
–
65900
-
CPU
DeepLiDARFlow Rishav et al. (2020)
RGB+LiDAR
2048
2D
–
6.41
8.29
82
13.45
RTX2080Ti
RAFT-3D Teed and Deng (2021)
RGB-D
all
2D
0.094
2.37
45.00
386
11.34
GTX1080Ti
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on the FlyingThings3D (FT3D) test set. ↓ indicates lower is better. We categorize the table into three groups based on the scene flow estimation domain ( i.e. , 2D, 2D/3D, or 3D). Model size is evaluated using the number of parameters (P). Runtime (R) is analyzed across different hardware devices, and the (TFLOPS) column gives the tera-floating-point-operations per second; higher values indicate more powerful GPUs. Best values in each category, with and without fine-tuning, are highlighted in bold.
Method
Modality
FT
KITTId
lidarKITTI
EPE3D
Acc3DR
Acc3DS
EPE2D
EPE3D
Acc3DR
[m] ↓
[%] ↑
[%] ↑
[px] ↓
[m] ↓
[%] ↑
FLOT Puy et al. (2020)
LiDAR only
×
0.311
48.5
25.4
18.19
0.501
33.7
FlowStep3D Kittenplon et al. (2021)
LiDAR only
×
0.303
57.8
38.2
–
0.479
20.4
SF3D-RGB (ours)
RGB+LiDAR
×
0.227
63.1
40.1
14.46
0.395
49.8
FLOT Puy et al. (2020)
LiDAR only
✓
0.101
80.2
57.8
5.48
0.289
66.2
Table 2: Metrics and comparison on KITTId and lidarKITTI. FT denotes fine-tuning. Best values in each category, with and without fine-tuning, are highlighted in bold.
Figure 3: Qualitative scene flow results of SF3D-RGB on the KITTId dataset, compared with LiDAR-only and early fusion baselines. LiDAR points are overlaid on the images to improve visualization clarity of the input scenes. Note that FLOT Puy et al. (2020) uses only LiDAR as input, whereas both the early fusion and our SF3D-RGB use LiDAR combined with a monocular camera as inputs. In the error maps, dark blue indicates lower error, dark red indicates higher error, and black regions indicate unavailable LiDAR points due to removal of ground points.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of SF3D-RGB and DeepLiDARFlow Rishav et al. (2020) on the KITTId and lidarKITTI test datasets. Our SF3D-RGB results show strong scene flow accuracy across both datasets compared to DeepLiDARFlow. LiDAR points are overlaid on the images to improve visualization clarity of the input scenes. Note that DeepLiDARFlow and our SF3D-RGB use LiDAR combined with a monocular camera as inputs. In the error maps, dark blue indicates lower error, dark red indicates higher error, and black regions indicate unavailable LiDAR points due to removal of ground points. Note that DeepLiDARFlow does not exclude ground points in its scene flow estimation.
Method
λ+ελ
EPE3D
OUT3D
Acc3DR
Acc3DS
[m] ↓
[%] ↓
[%] ↑
[%] ↑
FLOT
0.608
0.138
68.1
66.2
33.2
Early Fusion
0.549
0.129
64.2
70.3
36.1
SF3D-RGB
0.587
0.102
57.6
77.5
45.8
Table 3: Ablation study on FT3D (late fusion, number of Sinkhorn iterations k fixed to 1). Best values are in bold.
LiDAR
RGB
Early
Late
1 × MLP
2 × MLP
λ+ελ
EPE3D
OUT3D
Modality
Modality
Fusion
Fusion
256
256
[m] ↓
[%] ↓
✓
0.524
0.101
31.8
✓
✓
✓
0.372
0.092
29.4
✓
✓
✓
✓
0.307
0.098
27.6
✓
✓
✓
✓
0.443
0.078
25.5
Table 4: Verification of SF3D-RGB fusion on KITTId. Best values are in bold.
LiDAR scene flow is the task of estimating per-point 3D motion between consecutive point clouds. Recent methods achieve centimeter-level accuracy on popular autonomous vehicle (AV) datasets, but are typically only trained and evaluated on a single sensor. In this paper, we aim to learn general motion priors that transfer to diverse and unseen LiDAR sensors. However, prior work in LiDAR semantic segmentation and 3D object detection demonstrate that naively training on multiple datasets yields worse performance than single dataset models. Interestingly, we find that this conventional wisdom does not hold for motion estimation, and that state-of-the-art scene flow methods greatly benefit from cross-dataset training without architectural modification. We posit that low-level tasks such as motion estimation may be less sensitive to sensor configuration; indeed, our analysis shows that models trained on fast-moving objects (e.g., from highway datasets) perform well on fast-moving objects, even across different datasets. Informed by our analysis, we propose UniFlow, a feedforward model that unifies and trains on multiple large-scale LiDAR scene flow datasets with diverse sensor placements and point cloud densities. Our frustratingly simple solution establishes a new state-of-the-art on Waymo and nuScenes, improving over prior work by 5.1% and 35.2% respectively. Moreover, UniFlow achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on unseen datasets like TruckScenes and AEVAScenes, outperforming prior dataset-specific models by 30.1% and 22.5% respectively.
Siyi Li, Qingwen Zhang, Ishan Khatri +4
University of Pennsylvania · KTH Royal Institute of Technology · StackAV +1
LiDAR scene flow is the task of estimating point-wise motion from sequential point clouds. It is essential for autonomous driving, as it provides critical information about moving objects and their trajectories. In recent years, unsupervised methods have gained significant traction by eliminating the need for expensive point-wise annotations. However, despite incremental performance improvements, these methods uniformly rely on a single paradigm: training feed-forward networks through optimizing a loss function based on the Chamfer distance, a framework that inherently limits their progression. This paper presents CorrelationFlow, a new paradigm that reformulates LiDAR scene flow as a correlation maximization problem between Bird's-Eye View (BEV) images. Instead of using learnable parameters, our approach employs a chain of image processing operations to solve this problem. The learning-free nature of CorrelationFlow enables strong generalization across diverse domains. This capability is demonstrated by the second-place ranking in the unsupervised track of the Argoverse 2 Scene Flow Challenge at CVPR 2026, which featured a test set spanning five datasets that cover varied vehicle platforms and environments. Our results show that this classical, model-based approach can match or even surpass the performance of learning-based methods, thereby opening a new direction for unsupervised LiDAR scene flow research. The source code will be released.
Minh-Quan Dao, Yancong Lin, Shiming Wang +2
Nantes Université, LS2N · University of Nottingham · TU Delft +1
Estimating dense 2D optical flow and 3D scene flow is essential for dynamic scene understanding. Recent work combines images, LiDAR, and event data to jointly predict 2D and 3D motion, yet most approaches operate in separate heterogeneous feature spaces. Without a shared latent space that all modalities can align to, these systems rely on multiple modality-specific blocks, leaving cross-sensor mismatches unresolved and making fusion unnecessarily complex.Event cameras naturally provide a spatiotemporal edge signal, which we can treat as an intrinsic edge field to anchor a unified latent representation, termed the Event Edge Space. Building on this idea, we introduce x2-Fusion, which reframes multimodal fusion as representation unification: event-derived spatiotemporal edges define an edge-centric homogeneous space, and image and LiDAR features are explicitly aligned in this shared representation.Within this space, we perform reliability-aware adaptive fusion to estimate modality reliability and emphasize stable cues under degradation. We further employ cross-dimension contrast learning to tightly couple 2D optical flow with 3D scene flow. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real benchmarks show that x2-Fusion achieves state-of-the-art accuracy under standard conditions and delivers substantial improvements in challenging scenarios.
Ruishan Guo, Ciyu Ruan, Haoyang Wang +3
Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University · Harbin Institute of Technology · The University of Hong Kong