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.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Bleeding Artifacts in LiDAR Densification. An example of a densified result generated by the baseline method LiDPM. Note that without physical constraints, existing methods often generate severe ghost artifacts extending behind objects into free space.
Fig. 2: The proposed Scanline-Consistent Range-Aware Diffusion framework. (Left) Stage-0 constructs a coarse structural prior. (Middle) Stage-1 performs Partial Diffusion. The Probabilistic Range Head predicts both range noise and an uncertainty scale b^ . (Right) Physics-Aware Constraints. We employ an Isotropic Probabilistic Consistency loss. The penalty is weighted by a spatial Gaussian kernel (Lateral Weight) scaled by b^ , allowing the uncertainty to dynamically determine the valid geometric tolerance for both lateral misalignment ( d⊥ ) and radial occlusion ( d∥ ).
Fig. 3: Negative Ray Augmentation Strategy. (Panel A) On positive rays, the model learns a probabilistic range distribution. The uncertainty b^ (visualized as the green confidence region) represents the isotropic spatial tolerance learned by the network. (Panel B) On negative rays sampled from known free space, we enforce a zero-occupancy constraint. This explicitly teaches the Occupancy Head to suppress ghost points in free space where the sensor beam should pass through unimpeded.
Fig. 4: Qualitative Comparison of Densification Results. LiDPM preserves local detail but introduces scattered outlier points near object edges and occasional ghost points in free space. Our method generates sharp structures with clean free space in the demonstration.
KITTI-360 (64-beam, ∼ 120K →∼ 250K)
nuScenes (32-beam, ∼ 34.5K →∼ 150K)
Method
Venue
CD (m) ↓
EMD ↓
FSVR (%) ↓
REAP (%) ↓
CD (m) ↓
EMD ↓
FSVR (%) ↓
REAP (%) ↓
Non-Generative
IP-Basic [ 4 ]
IROS’18
0.2614
0.3427
4.87
10.42
0.2973
0.3846
5.21
11.63
Object-level Diffusion
PVD [ 18 ]
ICCV’21
0.3782
0.4965
11.53
17.28
0.4136
0.5374
12.74
18.95
PCDM [ 17 ]
NPL’25
0.2735
0.3581
7.64
12.35
0.3024
0.3918
8.26
13.41
TABLE I: Quantitative Comparison on KITTI-360 and nuScenes Validation Sets. ↓ indicates lower is better. Best results are in bold and second-best are underlined . PVD and PCDM are capped at 8K points due to attention memory limits.
Dataset
Sparse Input
Generated (Ours)
Dense GT
Ratio
KITTI-360 (64-beam)
∼ 120K
∼ 240K
∼ 250K
2.1 ×
nuScenes (32-beam)
∼ 34.5K
∼ 142K
∼ 150K
4.3 ×
TABLE II: Dataset Statistics. Avg. point counts for sparse input (single sweep), dense ground truth (multi-sweep accumulation), and our model’s typical output.
Category
Parameter
Value
Architecture
Hidden size H
256
Layers
6
BEV Resolution
64×64
Training
Total Epochs
200
Batch Size
8
Optimizer
AdamW ( lr=10−4 )
TABLE III: Implementation details of the proposed method.
Method
Ours
LiDiff ‡
LiDPM
R2DM
LiDARGen
PVD †
LiDM
IP-Basic
#Params
8.6M
38.2M
50.7M
45.5M
80.8M
13.6M
75.6M
CPU
Infer. (ms) ↓
156
2,340
1,559
434
823
OOM
20
13
TABLE IV: Computational Efficiency. We evaluate all methods with batch size 1. † PVD encountered OOM when processing 150K points.
KITTI-360
nuScenes
Configuration
CD ↓
FSVR ↓
CD ↓
FSVR ↓
Infer. (ms)
Full Model (Ours)
0.1512
2.77
0.1671
3.96
156
w/o Lfree (Ray Loss)
0.179
9.0
0.196
12.4
156
w/o Scanline Encoding
0.169
4.2
0.188
5.9
149
w/o Stage-0 (Pure Noise Init)
0.211
4.9
0.231
7.0
314
w/o BEV Branch (Point-only)
0.193
4.4
0.209
6.1
122
TABLE V: Ablation Study on KITTI-360 and nuScenes. Impact of the Ray Consistency Loss, Scanline Encoding, Coarse Initialization, and BEV Branch.
Detector
Input Data
mAP ↑
NDS ↑
VoxelNeXt
Raw Sparse (1 sweep)
61.2
68.4
Densified (LiDPM)
64.1
70.8
Densified (Ours)
65.6
71.9
CenterPoint
Raw Sparse (1 sweep)
56.3
64.5
Densified (LiDPM)
59.5
66.2
Densified (Ours)
61.1
67.6
TABLE VI: Downstream 3D Detection on nuScenes. Off-the-shelf SOTA detectors on raw sparse (1 sweep), LiDPM-densified, and our densified scans. All values are overall mAP and NDS.
Reconstructing dense 3D scenes from sparse LiDAR point clouds is a fundamental challenge in autonomous driving, where latent diffusion models offer a promising solution. However, existing approaches rely on object-level autoencoders that collapse into unstable global representations at outdoor scale and suffer from ground truth data corrupted by odometry drift that systematically degrades supervision quality. Furthermore, multi-step diffusion inference incurs prohibitive latency for real-time deployment. We propose a novel multi-token Gaussian VAE with cross-attention pooling for stable scene-scale LiDAR compression, combined with an anchor-based ICP ground truth refinement pipeline that eliminates drift-induced noise from training supervision. Together, these components enable a scaffold-free single-step diffusion completion model that achieves an approximately 16x reduction in squared Chamfer distance on SemanticKITTI seq. 08 (0.396 m^2 to 0.024 m^2), surpasses LiDiff and ScoreLiDAR by 17-19% and 10-11%, respectively, and operates at 25-143x lower inference latency. Our results demonstrate that data quality dominates model design in this regime and that multi-token latent spaces provide a stable first stage for latent diffusion-based scene completion.
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.
Quan Liu, Xiaoqin Zhang, Ling Shao +1
Nanyang Technological University · Zhejiang University of Technology · UCAS-Terminus AI Lab, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
High-beam-count LiDAR sensors are costly, yet many perception pipelines require dense angular sampling. Using a pretrained Stable Diffusion model as the backbone, we fine-tune a LiDAR-conditioned depth model with pseudo-depth targets from a 2D foundation model. During training, the LiDAR conditioning is randomly decimated at different beam budgets. We then investigate how much of a LiDAR scan can be recovered from heavily decimated input and characterize performance across the input beam budget. We evaluate against physically held-out real beams on nuScenes and report recovery separately from fit accuracy. Our model yields its largest advantage in very sparse regimes, achieving a δ1.25 accuracy of 66.8% from 4-beam input where scattered interpolation reaches only 45.1%. A class-stratified error breakdown further reveals that planar surfaces recover first while objects introducing depth discontinuities degrade earliest. Together, these results quantify the recovery/resolution trade-off for foundation-model-guided LiDAR enhancement.
Samed Doğan, Nico Leuze, Alfred Schöttl
Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany