AutoWeather4D: Autonomous Driving Video Weather Conversion via G-Buffer Dual-Pass Editing
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Xiamen University · Meituan-M17, Hong Kong
Abstract
Generative video models have significantly advanced the photorealistic synthesis of adverse weather for autonomous driving; however, they consistently demand massive datasets to learn rare weather scenarios. While 3D-aware editing methods alleviate these data constraints by augmenting existing video footage, they are fundamentally bottlenecked by costly per-scene optimization and suffer from inherent geometric and illumination entanglement. In this work, we introduce AutoWeather4D, a feed-forward 3D-aware weather editing framework designed to explicitly decouple geometry and illumination. At the core of our approach is a G-buffer Dual-pass Editing mechanism. The Geometry Pass leverages explicit structural foundations to enable surface-anchored physical interactions, while the Light Pass analytically resolves light transport, accumulating the contributions of local illuminants into the global illumination to enable dynamic 3D local relighting. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AutoWeather4D achieves comparable photorealism and structural consistency to generative baselines while enabling fine-grained parametric physical control, serving as a practical data engine for autonomous driving.
Figures & tables
| Method | Env light/shadow control | Extra light source | Weather change | Feed-forward | 4D dynamic scene | Tuning-free | Open-source |
| Cosmos-Transfer2.5 [ 1 ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| WAN-FUN 2.2 [ 56 ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Ditto [ 2 ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| WeatherWeaver [ 28 ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| WeatherDiffusion [ 80 ] | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| SceneCrafter [ 81 ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| S.A. | Night | Fog | Rain | Snow | |
| Time (s) | 128.1 | 167.1 | 170.9 | 2.2 | 67.6 |
| Model | CLIP Score (↑) | Vehicle 3D Detection IoU (↑) | Vehicle CLIP cosine similarity (↑) | Human Evaluation (↑) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video-P2P | 0.2448 | - | - | 0 |
| Ditto | 0.2532 | 0.805 | 0.769 | 0.425 |
| Cosmos-Transfer2.5 | 0.2558 | 0.913 | 0.837 | 0.580 |
| WAN-FUN 2.2 | 0.2577 | 0.888 | 0.794 | 0.668 |
| Ours | 0.2586 | 0.915 | 0.871 | 0.826 |
| Setting | ACDC mIoU(↑) | ACDC mAcc(↑) | DarkZurich mIoU(↑) | DarkZurich mAcc(↑) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| w/o augmentation | 49.20 | 60.72 | 23.92 | 38.29 |
| w/ cosmos | 49.66 (+0.93%) | 62.31 (+2.62%) | 23.93 (+0.04%) | 39.52 (+3.21%) |
| w/ ours | 49.81 (+1.24%) | 62.52 (+2.96%) | 24.09 (+0.71%) | 39.73 (+3.76%) |
| Model | Depth si-RMSE |
|---|---|
| Video-P2P [ 29 ] | 0.511 |
| Ditto [ 2 ] | 0.632 |
| Cosmos-Transfer2.5 [ 1 ] | 0.225 |
| WAN-FUN 2.2 [ 56 ] | 0.267 |
| Ours | 0.247 |
| Model | Edge F1 |
|---|---|
| Video-P2P [ 29 ] | 0.104 |
| Ditto [ 2 ] | 0.043 |
| Cosmos-Transfer2.5 [ 1 ] | 0.321 |
| WAN-FUN 2.2 [ 56 ] | 0.187 |
| Ours | 0.129 |
| Model | FVD Score | DOVER Score |
|---|---|---|
| Video-P2P [ 29 ] | 1687.4 | 0.194 |
| Ditto [ 2 ] | 2024.2 | 0.345 |
| Cosmos-Transfer2.5 [ 1 ] | 808.7 | 0.358 |
| WAN-FUN 2.2 [ 56 ] | 1029.5 | 0.448 |
| Ours | 886.8 | 0.370 |
| ID | Core Verification Point | Experimental Configuration Design |
|---|---|---|
| ① | 4D reconstruction can effectively prevent aliasing in local light rendering | Experiment A: Compare the effect with and without the 4D reconstruction module in Fig. 7 . |
| ② | Inverse rendering + Env light Editing can effectively manipulate shadows according to HDR changes | Experiment B: Compare shadow manipulation results with and without the combination of Inverse rendering + Env light Editing in Fig. 8 . |
| ③ | Geometry pass editing can effectively handle snow/rain weather editing based on prompts | Experiment C: Compare rain editing results with/without Geometry pass editing, and snow editing results with/without Geometry pass editing in Fig. 9 . |
| ④ | Light pass editing can effectively handle fog/night weather editing | Experiment D: Compare fog editing results with/without Light pass editing, and night editing results with/without Light pass editing in Fig. 10 . |
| ⑤ | VidRefiner can effectively remove noise in G-Buffer | Experiment E: Compare noisy G-Buffer processing results with and without VidRefiner in Fig. 11 . |
| ID Pair | Core Verification Point | Experimental Configuration Design |
|---|---|---|
| ① + ⑤ | Whether VidRefiner enhances fidelity of anti-aliased local light rendering | Experiment F: Compare local light rendering results of “4D Recon alone” vs. “4D Recon + VidRefiner” in Fig. 12 . |
| ② + ⑤ | Whether VidRefiner preserves shadow manipulation accuracy while enhancing fidelity | Experiment G: Compare shadow editing results of “Inverse Renderer+Env Light Editing alone” vs. “the combination + VidRefiner” in Fig. 13 . |
| ③ + ⑤ | Whether VidRefiner maintains weather effect realism and improves frame fidelity | Experiment H: Compare snow/rain editing results of “Geometry Pass Editing alone” vs. “Geometry Pass Editing + VidRefiner” in Fig. 14 . |
| ④ + ⑤ | Whether VidRefiner enhances fidelity of fog/night lighting edits | Experiment I: Compare fog/night editing results of “Light Pass Editing alone” vs. “Light Pass Editing + VidRefiner” in Fig. 15 . |
| ID Combination | Core Verification Point | Experimental Configuration |
|---|---|---|
| ①+②+⑤ | Anti-aliasing + shadow manipulation + fidelity | Not feasible: Anti-aliasing (4D reconstruction) acts primarily on light rendering, with no direct relevance to shadow manipulation. |
| ①+③+⑤ | Anti-aliasing + snow/rain editing + fidelity | Not feasible: Anti-aliasing (4D reconstruction) targets light rendering artifacts, which are irrelevant to snow/rain geometry edits. |
| ①+④+⑤ | Anti-aliasing + fog/night editing + fidelity | Redundant (Duplicate of Experiment F): Exact same setup as Experiment F (Tab. 9 ); results are reused to avoid redundant testing. |
| ②+③+⑤ | Shadow manipulation + snow/rain editing + fidelity | Not feasible: Snow/rain scenarios typically involve overcast conditions, where shadows are indistinct or absent, making shadow manipulation irrelevant. |
| ②+④+⑤ | Shadow manipulation + fog/night editing + fidelity | Not feasible: Night/fog conditions obscure direct light sources (e.g., sunlight), resulting in minimal or no distinct shadows to manipulate. |
| ③+④+⑤ | Snow/rain + fog/night editing + fidelity | Experiment J: Compare results of “Geometry Pass Editing + Light Pass Editing alone” vs. “the combination + VidRefiner” in Fig. 16 . |
| ID Combination | Core Verification Point | Experimental Configuration |
|---|---|---|
| ①+②+③+⑤ | Anti-aliasing + shadow manipulation + snow/rain editing + fidelity | Not feasible: Anti-aliasing (via 4D reconstruction) targets light rendering artifacts and is irrelevant to shadow manipulation or snow/rain geometry edits. |
| ①+②+④+⑤ | Anti-aliasing + shadow manipulation + fog/night editing + fidelity | Not feasible: Night/fog conditions obscure direct light sources (e.g., sunlight), resulting in minimal distinct shadows, making shadow manipulation irrelevant. |
| ①+③+④+⑤ | Anti-aliasing + snow/rain + fog/night editing + fidelity | Redundant (Duplicate of Experiment J): Exact same setup as Experiment J (Tab. 10 ); results are reused to avoid redundant testing. |
| ②+③+④+⑤ | Shadow manipulation + snow/rain + fog/night editing + fidelity | Not feasible: Night/fog conditions eliminate distinct shadows, rendering the shadow manipulation module irrelevant to combined snow/rain and fog/night weather edits. |