RECAST: From Log Replay to Closed-Loop Driving Simulation with View-Complete Actors
Authors: Zijun Zhao, Liewen Liao, Kang Shen, Songan Zhang, Ming Yang
Organizations: Global Institute of Future Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China · School of Automation and Intelligent Sensing, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the Key Laboratory of System Control and Information Processing, Ministry of Education of China, Shanghai 200240, China
Closed-loop driving simulation requires rendered observations to remain reliable as the ego vehicle and surrounding actors move beyond their recorded trajectories, exposing views absent from the source log. Existing data-driven simulators reconstruct dynamic actors from sparse observations, which can result in rendering artifacts under these viewpoint changes. We introduce RECAST (REconstructing Controllable Actors for Simulation and Testing), a 3D Gaussian Splatting framework that generates a view-complete actor from a single segmented vehicle observation in a driving log and registers the generated actor in the reconstructed scene. RECAST supports planner-in-the-loop rendering under controlled ego-actor interactions. To adapt an image-to-3D prior to real vehicles, we further introduce RECAR, a dataset of approximately 20K real vehicles with 600K background-free RGBA images spanning diverse vehicle colors and types. We use two-stage adaptation to improve vehicle generation from real driving-log observations. At the actor level, RECAST reduces FDincep from 9.788 to 7.992 relative to unadapted TRELLIS. At the scene level, under actor motion beyond logged trajectories, RECAST reduces FDincep from 129.35 to 112.10 and increases CLIPmargin (×1000) from 0.14 to 3.47 relative to Street Gaussians. We demonstrate planner-in-the-loop simulation with the image-conditioned planner GTRS-Dense. Compared with native Street Gaussians actors, RECAST increases the no-collision (NC) rate from 22.2% (12/54) to 63.0% (34/54) and the mean minimum predicted time-to-collision (TTC) from 0.798 s to 2.150 s. These experiments show that RECAST supports closed-loop planner evaluation under controlled ego-actor interactions beyond log replay. Visit our project page at https://zijunkr.github.io/RECAST/
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Actor appearance beyond log replay. Actor motion beyond the logged trajectory exposes previously unseen sides of the vehicle, revealing rendering artifacts in Street Gaussians (StreetGS) [ 9 ] and OmniRe [ 7 ] . RECAST generates a view-complete actor from a logged image and preserves coherent vehicle appearance under these viewpoint changes. Ego Actor
Fig. 2: RECAST overview. Multi-view pseudo-targets from RECAR support vehicle-domain and driving-log-robust (log-robust) adaptation. Given a single segmented driving-log image, the adapted model generates a view-complete Gaussian actor, which is registered using the logged 3D box and LiDAR points and then inserted into the reconstructed background. During closed-loop simulation, the ego controller executes the planner’s predicted trajectory, while the actor controller follows the specified motion. Updated states and camera poses provide the next planner input. Ego Actor
Dataset
Vehicles
Type
Views
Resolution
BG-free
Regular
SRN-Car [ 31 ]
2.1K
Synthetic
250
128×128
✓
✓
Objaverse-XL-Car [ 32 ]
11.4K
Synthetic
–
–
✓
✓
MVMC [ 33 ]
576
Real
10
600×450
×
×
3DRealCar [ 30 ]
2.5K
Real
200
1920×1440
×
×
MAD-CARS [ 12 ]
70K
Real
85
1920×1080
×
×
RECAR
20K
Real
30
1200×800
✓
✓
TABLE I: Comparison of vehicle-centric datasets.
Fig. 3: RECAR dataset. Examples of representative multi-view RGBA vehicle images, together with a bar chart illustrating the vehicle color distribution and a pie chart illustrating the vehicle type distribution.
Fig. 4: Scene-level qualitative comparison under controlled interactions on Waymo. We evaluate four target-actor motion settings. All methods share the same ego–actor trajectories within each scenario. Ego Actor
Scene quality
Method
FDincep↓
CLIPmargin↑
VQAmargin↑
StreetGS [ 9 ]
129.35
0.14
-294.91
w/ TRELLIS [ 25 ]
112.84
2.86
-172.36
w/ AH [ 14 ]
110.00
1.95
-156.42
OmniRe [ 7 ]
138.52
0.04
-314.18
w/ TRELLIS [ 25 ]
121.47
2.93
-216.82
TABLE III: Scene-level quantitative comparison under controlled interactions on Waymo.
Fig. 5: Actor-level qualitative comparison of single-image vehicle generation. The first three examples are from driving-log crops, while the last two examples are from 3DRealCar [ 30 ] . AH denotes Asset Harvester [ 14 ] , and Ours w/o II denotes our model without driving-log-robust adaptation.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
CLIPimg↑
FDincep↓
FDdinov2↓
Real3D [ 21 ]
13.19
0.5691
0.3223
68.17
91.196
1282.01
LN3Diff [ 22 ]
18.95
0.8843
0.1105
63.03
93.288
1455.05
3DTopia-XL [ 23 ]
15.54
0.8085
0.1817
59.90
166.294
1299.59
SAR3D [ 24 ]
15.39
0.8231
0.1588
66.55
64.042
746.99
AH [ 14 ]
19.22
0.8792
0.1044
78.29
38.368
183.08
TRELLIS [ 25 ]
21.02
0.9077
0.0603
78.22
9.788
43.89
TABLE IV: Actor-level quantitative generation results on held-out RECAR vehicles.