Unsupervised optical flow methods typically lack reliable uncertainty estimation, limiting their robustness and interpretability. We propose U2Flow, the first recurrent unsupervised framework that jointly estimates optical flow and per-pixel uncertainty. The core innovation is a decoupled learning strategy that derives uncertainty supervision from augmentation consistency via a Laplace-based maximum likelihood objective, enabling stable training without ground truth. The predicted uncertainty is further integrated into the network to guide adaptive flow refinement and dynamically modulate the regional smoothness loss. Furthermore, we introduce an uncertainty-guided bidirectional flow fusion mechanism that enhances robustness in challenging regions. Extensive experiments on KITTI and Sintel demonstrate that U2Flow achieves state-of-the-art performance among unsupervised methods while producing highly reliable uncertainty maps, validating the effectiveness of our joint estimation paradigm. The code is available at https://github.com/sunzunyi/U2FLOW.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between previous optical flow estimation methods and our approach. (Left) Previous methods estimate only optical flow. (Right) Our proposed U 2 Flow framework jointly estimates optical flow and its uncertainty, and further leverages the predicted uncertainty to refine the flow estimation.
Figure 2: Overview of U 2 Flow architecture. (a) The overall recurrent structure follows RAFT [ 50 ] . (b) The uncertainty-aware refinement module and the uncertainty estimation head respectively predict optical flow and per-pixel uncertainty in the recurrent update block.
Figure 3: Comparison of different masks for indicating flow errors. The masks are visualized as translucent green overlays on the optical flow error maps, where correct estimations are shown in blue , incorrect ones in red , and black pixels denote regions without ground truth. As shown in (c), some high-error regions remain unmasked, while certain low-error regions are incorrectly masked. In contrast, our method (d) accurately identifies high-error regions, providing more reliable cues for subsequent homography smoothness (Sec. 3.3 ), flow fusion (Sec. 3.4 ), and other downstream tasks.
[1.25pt]
Method
Sintel Clean
Sintel Final
KITTI 2012
KITTI 2015
train
test
train
test
train
test
train
test
EPE
EPE
EPE
EPE
EPE
Fl-all
Fl-noc
EPE
EPE
Fl-all
Fl-noc
Supervised
PWC-Net+ [ 48 ]
(1.71)
3.45
(2.34)
4.60
(0.99)
6.72
3.36
1.4
(1.47)
7.72
4.91
RAFT [ 50 ]
(0.77)
1.61
(1.27)
2.86
–
–
–
–
(0.63)
5.10
3.07
FlowFormer [ 11 ]
(0.48)
1.16
(0.74)
2.09
–
–
–
–
(0.53)
4.68
2.69
VideoFlow [ 41 ] MF
(0.46)
0.99
(0.66)
1.62
–
–
–
–
(0.56)
3.65
–
Table 1: Quantitative results on Sintel and KITTI online benchmarks. Metrics evaluated at “all” (all pixels), “noc” (non-occlusions). MF denotes methods trained using multi-frame data. † denotes models with semantic inputs. “+FF” denotes our bidirectional flow fusion module. Missing entries (–) denote unreported results. Parentheses indicate that training and testing are conducted on the same dataset.
[1.25pt] Method
Sintel
KITTI
AUSE ↓
CC ↑
AUSE ↓
CC ↑
FB Check [ 34 ]
0.19
0.57
0.21
0.53
PDC-Net+ [ 51 ]
0.18
0.45
0.16
0.50
Smoothness [ 1 ]
0.26
0.43
0.23
0.45
U 2 Flow (Ours)
0.11
0.66
0.12
0.64
[1.25pt]
Table 2: Comparison of uncertainty estimation performance on the Sintel (final, clean) and KITTI (2012, 2015) training sets.
Figure 4: Sparsification curves for uncertainty evaluation. Lower AUSE (shown in parentheses) is better.
Figure 5: Qualitative results on the KITTI test set (sample frames #5 and #9) and the Sintel (final pass) test set (samples: ambush_3 , frame 23; cave_3 , frame 16), compared with SMURF [ 44 ] . Additional examples can be found on the official benchmark website.
[1.25pt] UE
Dec.
FR
ℓhg
FF
Sintel
KITTI 2015
Final
Clean
EPE
Fl-all
-
-
-
-
-
2.46
1.56
1.98
6.82
✓
-
-
-
-
2.57
1.65
2.18
7.72
✓
✓
-
-
-
2.41
1.44
1.98
6.87
✓
✓
✓
-
-
2.32
1.42
1.95
6.85
✓
✓
-
✓
-
2.52
1.48
1.87
6.69
Table 3: Ablation study on key components. We evaluate the impact of Uncertainty Estimation (UE), Decoupling of flow and uncertainty learning (Dec.), Flow Refinement (FR), uncertainty-enhanced ℓhg , and Flow Fusion (FF). The ◯ symbol indicates that ℓhg is applied only on the KITTI dataset.
[1.25pt] Model Variant
Sintel
KITTI 2015
Final
Clean
EPE
Fl-all
w/o Refinement
2.41
1.44
1.87
6.69
Refinement w/o Uncertainty
2.42
1.51
1.93
6.81
\SetRow bg=gray!20 Refinement w/ Uncertainty
2.32
1.42
1.83
6.59
[1.25pt]
Table 4: Ablation study on the flow refinement module.
[1.25pt] Method
Sintel
KITTI 2015
Final
Clean
Fl-all
Fl-noc
Fl-occ
w/o Fusion
2.32
1.42
6.59
5.10
16.01
Occ Mask
2.34
1.42
8.17
5.07
27.73
\SetRow bg=gray!20 Unc Mask (Ours)
2.29
1.36
6.30
5.05
14.17
[1.25pt]
Table 5: Ablation study on the bidirectional flow fusion module.
[1.25pt] Method
KITTI → Sintel
Sintel → KITTI
Final
Clean
EPE
Fl-all
Ours (w/o Fusion)
5.80
4.67
5.10
17.05
Ours (w/ Fusion)
5.49
4.23
4.77
16.58
[1.25pt]
Table 6: Generalization ability. Training on one dataset and testing directly on the other dataset.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Detailed illustration of the recurrent update block. The diagram depicts the process flow for the k -th iteration. Components to the left of the dashed line represent the original RAFT [ 50 ] architecture, while components to the right constitute our proposed flow refinement module and uncertainty estimation head.
Figure 7: Schematic diagram of the self-supervision process. (1) An initial flow F1→2 is predicted from the original image pair. (2) Strong augmentations are applied to both the images and the flow, creating an augmented image pair and a transformed pseudo-ground-truth flow F^1→2 . (3) A new flow prediction F^1→2′ is generated from the augmented images. (4) The inconsistency D^ between the pseudo-ground-truth and the new prediction serves as the target signal for both the augmentation loss ( ℓar ) and the uncertainty supervision loss ( ℓunc ).
[1.25pt] Iter. Num.
Sintel Final
KITTI 2015
EPE ↓
AUSE ↓
CC ↑
EPE ↓
Fl-all ↓
AUSE ↓
CC ↑
Runtime
2
3.52
0.11
0.69
3.71
12.31
0.20
0.53
18 ms
4
2.75
0.10
0.69
2.32
8.23
0.21
0.50
35 ms
8
2.41
0.11
0.68
1.90
6.75
0.22
0.48
52 ms
12
2.32
0.11
0.67
1.83
6.59
0.22
0.48
66 ms
16
2.30
0.11
0.67
1.82
6.53
0.22
0.47
97 ms
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation study on the number of recurrent iterations ( K ). Flow accuracy improves and saturates with more iterations, while uncertainty estimation (AUSE) remains robustly stable. Runtime is measured on KITTI-2015.
[1.25pt] Method
Sintel
KITTI
AUSE ↓
CC ↑
AUSE ↓
CC ↑
Appearance Aug. Only
0.46
0.25
0.25
0.51
Spatial Aug. Only
0.12
0.65
0.12
0.64
Full (Ours)
0.11
0.66
0.12
0.64
[1.25pt]
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study of augmentation strategies for uncertainty.
Figure 8: Detailed test results of our model on Sintel [ 4 ] .
Figure 9: Detailed test results of our final model on KITTI [ 9 , 35 ] .
[1.25pt] Model Variant
Sintel
KITTI 2015
Final
Clean
EPE
Fl-all
w/o Uncertainty-Scaled
2.40
1.52
2.04
7.24
w/ Uncertainty-Scaled (Ours)
2.32
1.42
1.83
6.59
[1.25pt]
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study on the uncertainty scaling mechanism. Explicitly modulating flow representations with the scaled feature f~(k) yields better performance than implicit direct concatenation.
Figure 10: Visualization of selected regions for homography smoothness on Sintel and KITTI. The top two rows show samples from the Sintel dataset, while the bottom two rows are from KITTI. The uncertainty-based reliability mask successfully identifies regions with high flow error in both datasets. However, for Sintel, these high-error regions are typically non-rigid characters for which the planar homography assumption does not hold. In contrast, for KITTI, high-error regions often correspond to rigid vehicles and planar road surfaces, which are well-suited for homography regularization. This illustrates why the uncertainty-enhanced ℓhg is effective on KITTI but not on Sintel.
Figure 11: Qualitative results on the Spring benchmark [ 33 ] without fine-tuning.
[1.25pt] Model
1px
EPE
Fl
WAUC
total
low-det.
high-det.
matched
unmat.
rigid
non-rig.
not sky
sky
s0-10
s10-40
s40+
RAFT [ 50 ]
6.79
6.43
64.09
6.00
39.48
4.11
27.09
5.25
30.18
3.13
5.30
41.40
1.476
3.20
90.92
GMA [ 15 ]
7.07
6.70
66.20
6.28
39.89
4.28
28.25
5.61
29.26
3.65
5.39
40.33
0.914
3.08
90.72
GMFlow [ 55 ]
10.36
9.93
76.61
9.06
63.95
6.80
37.26
8.95
31.68
5.41
9.90
52.94
0.945
2.95
82.34
FlowFormer [ 11 ]
6.51
6.14
64.22
5.77
37.29
3.53
29.08
5.50
21.86
3.38
5.53
35.34
0.723
2.38
91.68
[dashed] SMURF [ 44 ]
6.43
6.04
66.52
5.49
45.12
3.58
27.95
5.53
20.07
3.44
6.59
30.99
0.659
2.10
90.45
Appendix
Table 10: Optical flow generalization results on the Spring benchmark [ 33 ] without fine-tuning. We report the 1px outlier rate across low/high-detail, (un)matched, (non-)rigid, and (non-)sky regions, along with the EPE, Fl error, and WAUC [ 38 ] metrics. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline, respectively, while key metrics are emphasized in blue.
Figure 12: Additional qualitative results on the KITTI-2015 test set.
Figure 13: Additional qualitative results on the Sintel (final pass) test set.
Optical flow estimation is a fundamental problem in computer vision, yet the reliance on expensive ground-truth annotations limits the scalability of supervised approaches. Although unsupervised and semi-supervised methods alleviate this issue, they often suffer from unreliable supervision signals based on brightness constancy and smoothness assumptions, leading to inaccurate motion estimation in complex real-world scenarios. To overcome these limitations, we introduce \modelname, a novel framework that synthesizes large-scale, perfectly aligned frame--flow data pairs for supervised optical flow training without human annotations. Specifically, our method leverages a pre-trained depth estimation network to generate pseudo optical flows, which serve as conditioning inputs for a next-frame generation model trained to produce high-fidelity, pixel-aligned subsequent frames. This process enables the creation of abundant, high-quality synthetic data with precise motion correspondence. Furthermore, we propose an inconsistent pixel filtering strategy that identifies and removes unreliable pixels in generated frames, effectively enhancing fine-tuning performance on real-world datasets. Extensive experiments on KITTI2012, KITTI2015, and Sintel demonstrate that \modelname achieves competitive or superior results compared to existing unsupervised and semi-supervised approaches, highlighting its potential as a scalable and annotation-free solution for optical flow learning. We will release our code upon acceptance.
Yixuan Luo, Feng Qiao, Zhexiao Xiong +2
University of Chicago · Washington University in St. Louis
Existing optical flow methods broadly follow two paradigms: iterative optimization and diffusion-based estimation. Iterative methods, exemplified by RAFT, achieve high accuracy through recurrent refinement, but remain challenged by large displacements and complex motion. Diffusion-based methods introduce generative modeling and show promise in such ambiguous regions. However, existing diffusion models usually denoise the entire dense flow field from Gaussian noise, including simple regions where reliable motion can already be estimated by a lightweight network. This increases the denoising burden and may cause slow convergence and unstable training. To address this issue, we introduce FlowPainter, a diffusion-based optical flow framework that reformulates dense-flow generation as confidence-guided soft inpainting. FlowPainter employs a lightweight confidence-aware network to predict a rough flow and a pixel-wise confidence mask, distinguishing reliable simple regions from uncertain hard regions. The resulting simple-flow prior is used for confidence-based initialization and further injected into iterative denoising through confidence-gated residual guidance. With dynamically decaying guidance strength, FlowPainter stabilizes early denoising while preserving the flexibility of the diffusion model for late-stage detail refinement. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks, including Sintel, KITTI, and Spring, show that FlowPainter achieves strong accuracy under comparable training settings and converges more efficiently than existing diffusion-based optical flow methods, with notable gains on challenging benchmark splits. Our approach offers a practical way to integrate reliable discriminative priors with diffusion-based refinement for optical flow estimation. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/mya012/FlowPainter.
Yuang Meng, Chenyang Wu, Xianshun Liu +7
VCIP, CS, Nankai University · OPPO Research Institute · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
We present FlowIt, a novel architecture for optical flow estimation that combines global matching with confidence and occlusion-guided refinement. At its core, FlowIt leverages a hierarchical transformer architecture that captures extensive global context, enabling the model to effectively model long-range correspondences. To overcome the limitations of localized matching, we formulate the flow initialization as an optimal transport problem. This formulation yields a highly robust initial flow field, alongside explicitly derived occlusion and confidence maps. These cues are then seamlessly integrated into a guided refinement stage, where the network actively propagates reliable motion estimates from high-confidence regions into ambiguous, low-confidence areas. Extensive experiments across the Sintel, KITTI, Spring, and LayeredFlow datasets validate the effectiveness of our approach. FlowIt achieves state-of-the-art results on the competitive Sintel benchmark and establishes new state-of-the-art cross-dataset zero-shot generalization performance on Sintel, Spring, and LayeredFlow, while also delivering competitive performance on both the KITTI benchmark and KITTI zero-shot generalization settings.
Sadra Safadoust, Fabio Tosi, Matteo Poggi +1
Department of Computer Engineering and KUIS AI Center, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey · Department of Computer Science and Engineering (DISI), University of Bologna, Italy