RadarGSOcc: Doppler-Aware 3D Semantic Occupancy Prediction Using 4D Radar Tensor with Geometric-Semantic Feature Extraction
Authors: Christofel Rio Goenawan, Dong-Hee Paek, Seung-Hyun Kong
Organizations: Robotics Program, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Korea · CCS Graduate School of Mobility, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea · Department of Future Mobility, Korea University, Sejong, Korea
3D semantic occupancy prediction is crucial for autonomous driving, but camera-based methods degrade in low-light conditions and LiDAR-based methods are sensitive to adverse weather. 4D radar is more robust, yet its sparsity and the high cost of radar tensor processing limit its use. We propose Radar Geometric-Semantic Occupancy Prediction (RadarGSOcc), an efficient framework that directly processes 4D radar tensors by separately extracting geometric and semantic features, including Doppler information, with a deformable attention-based geometric refinement module as its key component. We also introduce the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark, the first large-scale benchmark for 3D semantic occupancy prediction using 4D radar tensors, built on the K-Radar dataset with refined LiDAR-based annotations. RadarGSOcc predicts 15 classes within a 51.2m range and achieves 38.2% IoU, 7.6% mIoU, and 25.5% weighted mIoU, outperforming RadarOcc by 17% relative (25.5 vs. 21.9) in weighted mIoU while using fewer parameters and lower computation. It substantially improves truck prediction while trading off car accuracy, outperforms camera-based approaches, and narrows the gap with LiDAR-based methods. To assess robustness without per-frame ground truth in adverse weather, we further propose a novel proxy metric, Environment-Based KL Divergence (EBKL), under which 4D radar proves a reliable and efficient modality for 3D semantic occupancy prediction. The dataset and code will be publicly available.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: (Left) Visualization of 3D semantic occupancy prediction under heavy snow in a highway scenario. (a) Input modalities: (left) front-view camera image, (middle) LiDAR point cloud, and (right) BEV of 4D radar tensor. (b) Predicted occupancy using (left) camera-based OpenOcc-C [ 1 ] , (middle) LiDAR-based OpenOcc-L [ 1 ] , and (right) the proposed RadarGSOcc with 4D radar input. RadarGSOcc produces more accurate predictions for key structures such as drivable areas (green box) and highway barriers (red box) under adverse weather. (Right) Quantitative comparison using the proposed EBKL proxy metric (lower is better). RadarGSOcc achieves lower EBKL, indicating more consistent predictions in adverse weather, while camera- and LiDAR-based methods degrade significantly.
Configuration
IoU
mIoU
RadarOcc (with Doppler)
36.4
6.7
RadarOcc (w/o Doppler)
35.9 ( − 0.5)
6.7 (0.0)
TABLE I: Impact of Doppler index on RadarOcc performance (our reproduction on the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark).
Fig. 2: Overview of the K-Radar 3DSemOcc labeling process. (a) Initial LiDAR-based labels. (b) Refined labels using K-Radar annotations, improving moving objects (red box).
Fig. 3: Overview of the proposed RadarGSOcc architecture. The input 4D radar tensor is divided into power and Doppler components and processed by the proposed Geometric-Semantic Feature Extraction module (bottom left, Section III-B2 ), where W×H×L denote spherical spatial dimensions and dim is the feature dimension. The extracted features are then passed to the occupancy head (bottom right), where the proposed geometric feature refinement module (Section III-B3 ) refines occupancy features using geometric representations. The final output is a 3D semantic occupancy prediction of size H×W×L .
Method
Sensor
IoU
mIoU
W-mIoU
EBKL
DA
Veg
Man
Car
Truck
Ter
Side
CONet-C [ 1 ]
Cam
16.9
3.2
11.3
0.093
27.4
4.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
11.4
0.0
BEVFormer [ 14 ]
Cam
27.3
4.1
16.0
0.072
34.0
10.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
11.9
0.5
OpenOcc-C [ 1 ]
Cam
30.0
5.4
17.1
0.054
34.7
17.3
13.7
5.9
1.8
19.0
0.9
OpenOcc-R [ 1 ]
Radar
26.0
4.0
14.7
0.054
34.0
8.8
5.1
1.2
0.0
8.9
0.8
OpenOcc-RC [ 1 ]
R+Cam
25.2
3.8
14.0
0.075
34.9
5.6
0.8
0.0
0.1
11.0
1.4
4DRC-Occ [ 11 ]
R+Cam
30.2
4.6
17.6
0.054
35.2
12.8
0.1
0.2
0.0
15.3
1.9
TABLE II: 3D semantic occupancy results on the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark (test split). Best, second-best, and third-best results are shown in bold, underlined, and italic, respectively. EBKL is computed under normal weather conditions (lower is better); “–” denotes not evaluated. “+ w/o overlap” denotes RadarGSOcc without the Doppler channels shared between the geometric and semantic branches. RadarOcc and RadarGSOcc rows are the first of three training runs (Section IV-D2 ). Results for all classes are given in Table S-VI of the supplementary material.
Fig. 4: Visualization of 3D semantic occupancy prediction using LiDAR (OpenOcc-L) [ 1 ] , camera (OpenOcc-C) [ 1 ] , and 4D radar tensors with RadarOcc [ 7 ] and the proposed RadarGSOcc in urban (1) and highway (2) scenarios. In each scenario, the top row shows (from left) the front-camera image, LiDAR point cloud, 4D radar tensor, and ground truth, while the bottom row shows camera-based prediction, LiDAR-based prediction, RadarOcc, and RadarGSOcc. Each prediction includes a 3D front-right view, BEV view, and front view. In these examples, RadarGSOcc predicts the highlighted moving objects (red and black boxes) more accurately, improves terrain and drivable area prediction (dashed black box), and reduces false moving-object predictions (dashed red box); quantitatively, however, its merged vehicle IoU is lower than that of RadarOcc (Section IV-D1 ).
Threshold
mIoU
W-mIoU
#Voxel GT
#Voxel Prediction
0.2
3.97
12.7
26,647
14,842
0.4
5.44
17.7
25,796
17,130
0.8
7.60
25.5
14,606
9,930
0.9
7.14
24.5
10,559
7,049
TABLE III: Performance of RadarGSOcc on the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark under different class probability thresholds.
Fusion
Conv
Def
IoU
mIoU
W-mIoU
Param
FLOPs
FPS
RadarOcc [ 7 ]
36.4
6.7
21.9
117.5
1334.1
3.3
×
×
×
35.7
6.9
21.8
104.2
1260.1
3.2
×
×
✓
36.1
7.0
21.1
104.6
1270.8
3.1
✓
×
×
35.9
6.6
20.7
104.2
1262.7
3.1
✓
✓
×
32.3
5.6
18.1
105.0
1285.4
3.2
✓
×
✓
38.2
7.6
25.5
104.6
1273.5
3.1
TABLE IV: Ablation study of RadarGSOcc. Fusion: geometric-semantic fusion; Conv/Def: geometric refinement with 3D convolution / deformable attention. ✓ indicates enabled. Param in millions (M) and FLOPs in GFLOPs (G). Each variant is a single training run.
Fig. 5: Visualization of 3D occupancy features before (left) and after (middle) geometric refinement, compared with ground truth (right). In these examples, the refined features respond more strongly to moving objects (cars and trucks in red and black boxes) and road structures (dashed red boxes).
Top-K
Doppler
IoU
mIoU
W-mIoU
FLOPs
FPS
150
1
35.2
6.3
20.0
1273.2
3.2
150
2
35.8
6.8
21.2
1273.2
3.2
150
3
36.5
6.8
20.4
1273.2
3.2
250
1
36.9
6.6
21.5
1273.3
3.1
250
2
34.5
6.8
20.2
1273.4
3.1
250
3
38.2
7.6
25.5
1273.5
3.1
TABLE V: Ablation of RadarGSOcc with different Top-K values and Doppler dimensions (single training runs).
Fig. 6: mIoU versus EBKL (normal weather, test split) of the nine models in Table II for which EBKL is evaluated. The dashed line is a least-squares fit; the values are listed in Table S-IX of the supplementary material.
Model
Normal
Sleet
Rain
Fog
Light
Heavy
OpenOcc-C [ 1 ]
18.5
17.5
16.7
16.5
17.0
18.9
CONet-L [ 1 ]
29.8
9.7
14.3
9.5
9.8
14.2
RadarGSOcc
26.5
26.1
24.5
28.1
15.1
15.3
TABLE VI: Percentage of non-empty voxel predictions under different weather conditions (Light/Heavy: light/heavy snow). The adverse-weather sequences are listed in Table S-I of the supplementary material.
Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15
Scene
Split
Weather
Environment
Time
#Frames
2
Train
Normal
Highway
Night
462
5
Train
Normal
Urban
Day
595
8
Train
Normal
University
Night
567
9
Train
Normal
Highway
Day
833
10
Train
Normal
Highway
Day
1,130
14
Train
Normal
Urban
Day
595
TABLE S-I: Composition of the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark and the unlabeled adverse-weather sequences.
Class
#Voxels (train)
%
#Voxels (test)
%
Drivable area
4,183,019
24.12
1,216,791
26.67
Vegetation
8,536,616
49.22
2,068,116
45.34
Manmade
1,776,829
10.24
382,270
8.38
Terrain
2,056,773
11.86
710,776
15.58
Sidewalk
406,188
2.34
91,606
2.01
Other flat
12,819
0.07
6,723
0.15
TABLE S-II: Ground-truth voxel statistics per class before label refinement (label-confidence threshold 0.8).
Class
#Voxels (train)
%
#Voxels (test)
%
Drivable area
3,738,578
22.94
1,206,770
25.95
Vegetation
7,977,664
48.96
2,048,675
44.06
Manmade
1,526,764
9.37
372,645
8.01
Terrain
1,888,009
11.59
704,612
15.15
Sidewalk
378,405
2.32
91,151
1.96
Other flat
12,065
0.07
6,518
0.14
TABLE S-III: Ground-truth voxel statistics per class after label refinement (label-confidence threshold 0.8), used in all experiments.
Fig. S1: Manual verification of the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark. Sampled voxels (green 3D boxes) are projected onto the front-camera image (left) and the LiDAR bird’s-eye view (right): (top) car voxels in a night scene and (bottom) manmade voxels in a day scene.
Class
#Sampled
#Correct
Accuracy (%)
Drivable area
126
125
99.2
Vegetation
191
188
98.4
Manmade
66
64
97.0
Terrain
99
69
69.7
Car
16
14
87.5
Truck/bus
5
4
80.0
TABLE S-IV: Manual verification of 525 randomly sampled non-empty voxels.
Self-attn.
Fusion
Refinement
Feature dimension dim
96
96
192
Number of heads
8
8
8
Sampling points per query
8
8
8
Number of layers
1
1
1
Sampling coordinates
[0,1]
[0,1]
[0,1]
TABLE S-V: Hyperparameters of the deformable attention modules.
Method
Sensor
IoU
mIoU
W-mIoU
DA
Veg
Man
Car
Truck
Ter
Side
Other
Trail
Cone
Ped
Moto
Bike
Bar
CONet-C [ 1 ]
Cam
16.9
3.2
11.3
27.4
4.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BEVFormer [ 14 ]
Cam
27.3
4.1
16.0
34.0
10.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
11.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OpenOcc-C [ 1 ]
Cam
30.0
5.4
17.1
34.7
17.3
13.7
5.9
1.8
19.0
0.9
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
OpenOcc-R [ 1 ]
Radar
26.0
4.0
14.7
34.0
8.8
5.1
1.2
0.0
8.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OpenOcc-RC [ 1 ]
R+Cam
25.2
3.8
14.0
34.9
5.6
0.8
0.0
0.1
11.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4DRC-Occ [ 11 ]
R+Cam
30.2
4.6
17.6
35.2
12.8
0.1
0.2
0.0
15.3
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TABLE S-VI: 3D semantic occupancy results on the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark for all classes (IoU in %, test split).
Fig. S2: Normalized ground-truth class distributions (%) of the normal-weather scenes, grouped by environment, for the eight classes shown.
Scenes \ Reference
Urban
University
Highway
Urban scenes
0.017
0.014
0.030
University scenes
0.015
0.008
0.035
Highway scenes
0.032
0.036
0.015
TABLE S-VII: Mean EBKL between scene-level and environment-level class distributions (ground truth, normal weather).
Model
Run (seed)
IoU
mIoU
W-mIoU
RadarOcc
1 (not fixed)
36.4
6.7
21.9
2 (1111)
36.3
6.4
20.1
3 (2222)
36.0
7.0
20.8
Mean ± std
36.26 ± 0.23
6.72 ± 0.28
20.93 ± 0.90
RadarGSOcc
1 (not fixed)
38.2
7.6
25.5
2 (1111)
39.3
7.0
24.6
TABLE S-VIII: Results of the three training runs of RadarOcc and RadarGSOcc on the K-Radar 3DSemOcc benchmark (test split).
Model
mIoU (%)
EBKL
CONet-C [ 1 ]
3.2
0.093
BEVFormer [ 14 ]
4.1
0.072
OpenOcc-C [ 1 ]
5.4
0.0536
OpenOcc-R [ 1 ]
4.0
0.054
OpenOcc-RC [ 1 ]
3.8
0.075
4DRC-Occ [ 11 ]
4.6
0.0543
TABLE S-IX: mIoU and EBKL (normal weather, test split) of the nine models in Fig. 6 .
Autonomous driving requires robust perception across diverse environmental conditions, yet 3D semantic occupancy prediction remains challenging under adverse weather and lighting. In this work, we present the first study combining 4D radar and camera data for 3D semantic occupancy prediction. Our fusion leverages the complementary strengths of both modalities: 4D radar provides reliable range, velocity, and angle measurements in challenging conditions, while cameras contribute rich semantic and texture information. We further show that integrating depth cues from camera pixels enables lifting 2D images to 3D, improving scene reconstruction accuracy. Additionally, we introduce a fully automatically labeled dataset for training semantic occupancy models, substantially reducing reliance on costly manual annotation. Experiments demonstrate the robustness of 4D radar across diverse scenarios, highlighting its potential to advance autonomous vehicle perception.
David Ninfa, Andras Palffy, Holger Caesar
Cognitive Robotics, Delft University of Technology · Perciv AI
Reliable autonomous driving requires full-scene perception that couples foreground objects with dense semantic layout. Recently, 4D millimeter-wave radar has emerged as a robust and affordable sensor, yet its sparse returns make radar-camera fusion necessary for comprehensive scene understanding. Existing radar-camera methods mainly optimize detection, while dual-task systems usually decode boxes and occupancy with limited interaction. To address this gap and advance radar-based multi-task learning, we propose \method, a 4D radar-camera framework for 360∘ full-scene perception, which models semantic occupancy as a persistent scene state rather than a terminal output. \method{} follows a cross-modal state reasoning paradigm, where the occupancy state is modeled and propagated through stages for coarse-to-fine feature aggregation. Specifically, State-guided BEV Enhancement (SBE) strengthens intra-frame BEV representation, while Doppler-guided Temporal Fusion (DTF) preserves state evidence over longer temporal horizons. Beyond the model, we further extend ManTruckScenes with satellite-map-based generated occupancy labels and pair it with OmniHD-Scenes in a unified cross-dataset detection-and-occupancy protocol. The resulting experiments cover accuracy, robustness, ablation, and efficiency under one radar-camera multi-task evaluation framework. Code and labels will be released upon acceptance.
Xiaokai Bai, Lianqing Zheng, Runwei Guan +3
College of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University. · School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University. · Thrust of Artificial Intelligence, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
This paper introduces VLMFusionOcc3D, a robust multimodal framework for dense 3D semantic occupancy prediction in autonomous driving. Current voxel-based occupancy models often struggle with semantic ambiguity in sparse geometric grids and performance degradation under adverse weather conditions. To address these challenges, we leverage the rich linguistic priors of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to anchor ambiguous voxel features to stable semantic concepts. Our framework initiates with a dual-branch feature extraction pipeline that projects multi-view images and LiDAR point clouds into a unified voxel space. We propose Instance-driven VLM Attention (InstVLM), which utilizes gated cross-attention and LoRA-adapted CLIP embeddings to inject high-level semantic and geographic priors directly into the 3D voxels. Furthermore, we introduce Weather-Aware Adaptive Fusion (WeathFusion), a dynamic gating mechanism that utilizes vehicle metadata and weather-conditioned prompts to re-weight sensor contributions based on real-time environmental reliability. To ensure structural consistency, a Depth-Aware Geometric Alignment (DAGA) loss is employed to align dense camera-derived geometry with sparse, spatially accurate LiDAR returns. Extensive experiments on the nuScenes and SemanticKITTI datasets demonstrate that our plug-and-play modules consistently enhance the performance of state-of-the-art voxel-based baselines. Notably, our approach achieves significant improvements in challenging weather scenarios, offering a scalable and robust solution for complex urban navigation.