TL;DR
RealEngine is a comprehensive driving simulation framework that combines advanced scene reconstruction and view synthesis to provide realistic, diverse, and scalable environments for developing and evaluating autonomous driving agents.
Contribution
It introduces a novel simulation framework that integrates 3D scene reconstruction and view synthesis for photorealistic, multi-modal, and flexible driving scenarios, addressing limitations of existing simulators.
Findings
Supports diverse traffic scenarios with high realism
Enables multi-modal sensor simulation including camera and LiDAR
Provides a reliable benchmark for autonomous driving evaluation
Abstract
Driving simulation plays a crucial role in developing reliable driving agents by providing controlled, evaluative environments. To enable meaningful assessments, a high-quality driving simulator must satisfy several key requirements: multi-modal sensing capabilities (e.g., camera and LiDAR) with realistic scene rendering to minimize observational discrepancies; closed-loop evaluation to support free-form trajectory behaviors; highly diverse traffic scenarios for thorough evaluation; multi-agent cooperation to capture interaction dynamics; and high computational efficiency to ensure affordability and scalability. However, existing simulators and benchmarks fail to comprehensively meet these fundamental criteria. To bridge this gap, this paper introduces RealEngine, a novel driving simulation framework that holistically integrates 3D scene reconstruction and novel view synthesis…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
Strength 1. The paper addresses a fundamental and highly significant problem in autonomous driving research. The lack of a simulator that is simultaneously realistic, interactive, and controllable is a major bottleneck for developing and validating robust driving agents. RealEngine represents a substantial step forward in addressing this need, and its contribution is very timely given the recent advances in neural rendering. 2. A standout strength of this work is its comprehensiveness. The autho
Weaknesses: 1. The paper accurately identifies a critical need for a realistic, closed-loop simulator. However, the solution can be characterized as a sophisticated systems integration effort rather than a work of fundamental algorithmic novelty. It combines SOTA rendering techniques effectively but does not propose new rendering methods or a more insightful data generation paradigm. More critically, while 'multi-agent interaction' is highlighted as a key capability, this contribution feels sign
●System Integration: A well-engineered pipeline that combines multiple state-of-the-art components (3DGS, GS-LiDAR, PBR rendering, diffusion relighting) into a coherent simulator. ●Practical Value: Addresses a clear gap between open-loop datasets and realistic, interactive simulation for autonomous driving. ●Quantitative Rigor: Provides detailed ablation studies, pose-correction evaluation, and multi-agent PDMS comparisons. ●High-quality Visual Results: Demonstrates strong image reconstruction m
●Limited Novelty: The paper mainly integrates existing techniques rather than introducing a novel algorithmic contribution. The background reconstruction uses StreetGaussians and GS-LiDAR, the foreground uses off-the-shelf meshes, and the composition uses a PBR pipeline with a diffusion prior. The proposed "innovations," such as LiDAR-based pose correction and exposure compensation, feel more like necessary engineering adjustments for the nuPlan dataset rather than fundamental research contribut
- `Addresses a key evaluation gap:` As end-to-end autonomous driving becomes more prevalent, rigorous evaluation remains challenging because intermediate perception outputs are not exposed. The proposed system enables non-iterative closed-loop evaluation without relying on intermediate signals, which is a substantive technical contribution. - `Cohesive and well-engineered pipeline:` The overall system design appears sound, and the implementation effort is substantial and appreciated. - `Benchm
- `Foreground–background domain gap and realism (Fig. 2):` The participant model in Fig. 2 appears visually inconsistent with the reconstructed background even after relighting, creating a noticeable distribution gap. Models may exploit these artifacts to “spot” foreground objects, potentially inflating performance relative to real images. I wish to see the idea behind this concern from the authors. - `Novel-trajectory rendering and temporal consistency:` It’s unclear how well 3DGS rendering ho
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
