Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

SplatR : Experience Goal Visual Rearrangement with 3D Gaussian Splatting and Dense Feature Matching

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 3D Gaussian Splat of the goal scene, compared with DINOv2 patch features, lets an embodied agent detect and fix rearranged objects.

desk verdict A clean new application of 3DGS to rearrangement, but the empirical support is too thin to back the headline SOTA claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14322 v2 pith:3LCHJJOD submitted 2024-11-21 cs.RO cs.CV

Arjun P S , Andrew Melnik , Gora Chand Nandi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords 3DGaussiansplattingvisualrearrangementembodiedAIscenerepresentationdensefeaturematchingDINOv2roomworldmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SplatR tries to establish that an embodied agent can solve experience-goal visual rearrangement by storing the goal scene as a 3D Gaussian Splat. In the walkthrough phase the agent trains this splat; after the scene is shuffled, it places a virtual camera in the splat at its current pose and renders a matching goal view. The agent compares live and rendered views patch by patch with DINOv2 features, groups changed patches into objects, and rearranges them. The paper reports that this pipeline beats prior methods on the benchmark's key metrics (Fixed Strict, Misplaced, Energy Remaining), and argues the advantage comes from having consistent views of goal and current states in image space. If correct, this shows a continuous volumetric reconstruction plus foundation-model features can act as a practical goal-state representation for embodied rearrangement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 3D Gaussian Splat: a set of 3D Gaussian primitives, each with mean, covariance, opacity, and color, trained by differentiable rasterization to reproduce the goal scene and render novel views in real time. A virtual camera placed at the agent's current pose turns this splat into a 'goal image' aligned with the live camera. The second mechanism is patchwise dense feature matching with DINOv2, in which each 14x14 image patch is represented by a visual feature vector and the cosine similarity of corresponding patches flags changed regions; adjacent changed patches are grouped into object detections. Object nodes carry CLIP embeddings and point clouds, and the Hungarian algorithm solves the category-agnostic bipartite matching between shuffled and goal nodes. Together these convert a static reconstruction into a rearrangement policy that ignores object-class detectors.

What would settle it

Take a fixed goal scene, render it through the splat with no object changes, then shift the virtual camera pose by small offsets or corrupt the splat slightly; if DINOv2 patchwise similarity flags many patches as changed, the reported detections are measuring rendering or alignment error, not object displacement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 3D Gaussian Splat of the goal configuration works as the world model for experience-goal rearrangement. Once the splat is trained from walkthrough observations, the agent renders the goal view from its current pose, producing an image pair (current, goal) that is consistent except for the object changes themselves. Change detection runs by cosine similarity between DINOv2 patch tokens of the two images; similar-dissimilar patch groups become coarse object masks, SAM refines them, and each object is stored as a node with a CLIP embedding, a point cloud, and a world-space center. At the end of exploration, Hungarian matching on CLIP similarities pairs shuffled objects with goal objects, and the agent picks and places accordingly. On the benchmark's Room Rearrangement subset, the paper reports 36.35% Fixed Strict, 0.62 Misplaced, and 0.63 Energy Remaining, improvements over the compared methods; the 3.85% Success rate is low because the pipeline only repositions objects and does not adjust open/close degrees.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes the goal-scene splat, viewed from the agent's current pose, lines up with the live camera closely enough that patch-feature differences mean real object changes rather than rendering artifacts or pose error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Consistent image pairs can be generated from any viewpoint, so the agent no longer needs to revisit the exact goal viewpoint to detect changes.
  • Patch-level foundation-model features tolerate splatting artifacts better than pixel-level comparison, reducing false change detections on flat and reflective surfaces.
  • Combining change masks with SAM-refined object masks and CLIP embeddings gives category-agnostic matching, so no per-object detector trained on the target rooms is needed.
  • The reported benchmark numbers imply the method fixes more shuffled objects (36.35% Fixed Strict) and disturbs fewer unchanged objects (0.62 Misplaced) than the compared methods.
  • Because the pipeline only repositions objects and does not adjust openness, episodes that require opening or closing objects count as failures, keeping success rate low even when all displacements are corrected.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A multi-scale or splat-embedded feature field would likely recover the small objects the fixed 14x14 patch misses; this can be tested by measuring detection rate as object size shrinks.
  • Adding pose noise to the virtual camera during evaluation would quantify how much of the change signal is alignment error, a cheap extension of the reported benchmark.
  • The same splat-plus-feature-match recipe could apply to any goal specification that can be rendered as a view, such as CAD models, sketches, or language-conditioned feature fields.
  • Because the paper evaluates zero-shot with respect to the target rooms, the framework's robustness to splatting artifacts is a key controlling factor for deployment beyond simulation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SplatR, an embodied agent for the experience-goal visual rearrangement task. The agent first explores the goal-state scene, trains a 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) model as a world representation, and then, during an unshuffle phase, renders the goal-state view from a virtual camera aligned with its current pose. Change detection is performed by patchwise dense feature matching with DINOv2 features between the live RGB frame and the rendered goal frame; detected changes are grouped into object nodes, refined with SAM, merged using visual and spatial similarity, and matched across shuffled and goal sets via the Hungarian algorithm or greedy assignment. The agent is evaluated on 26 randomly sampled episodes from the AI2-THOR RoomR 2-Phase challenge. The central claim is that SplatR improves over current state of the art on % Fixed Strict, % Misplaced, and % Energy Remaining, while the reported Success rate is lower than two baselines (Table 1). The authors also provide a comparison of Hungarian versus greedy matching and an ablation of fixed versus fixed-strict metrics.

Significance. If the central claim is valid, SplatR would demonstrate that a 3D Gaussian Splatting world model, combined with dense DINOv2 feature matching, is a viable representation for visual goal rearrangement, offering the advantage of continuous novel-view rendering and category-agnostic object matching. The method is zero-shot with respect to pretrained detection and segmentation models, which is a positive feature for generalization. However, the current evidence is insufficient to establish the claimed state-of-the-art improvement because the evaluation is based on a small, randomly sampled subset with no reported statistical uncertainty, and the comparison appears to be against published numbers that were likely obtained on the full dataset rather than on the same 26 episodes. Furthermore, the pipeline deliberately ignores the openness component of object state, which directly explains the low Success rate and limits the claim of improving over state of the art on the full task. The paper also lacks a control experiment for false positives caused by 3DGS rendering artifacts, which is a key risk for its change-detection mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] The comparison underlying the state-of-the-art claim is not valid as reported. The authors evaluate SplatR on a randomly sampled subset of 26 episodes from the RoomR dataset, while the baseline numbers in Table 1 (TIDEE, CA VR, MaSS) appear to be the published results on the full dataset or a different evaluation setting. If the baselines were not re-run on the same 26 episodes, the comparison is confounded by the choice of subset, and the claimed improvements in % Fixed Strict, % Misplaced, and % Energy Remaining could be an artifact of the sampled episodes being easier for SplatR. The authors should either re-evaluate all baselines on their exact 26 episodes and report per-episode results, or clearly state that the comparison is against published aggregate numbers and temper the SOTA claim accordingly. In addition, a 26-episode sample with no seeds, no confidence intervals, and no error bars cannot support a strong comparative claim; at minimum, multiple random seeds and bootstrap intervals are needed.
  2. [§5.2, Table 1] The low Success rate is not a minor caveat but a direct limitation of the proposed method with respect to the benchmark's task definition. The authors state that the pipeline 'focuses exclusively on repositioning objects' and does not handle the degree-of-openness component of object state, which means episodes that require opening or closing objects will always fail. Since the AI2-THOR rearrangement challenge defines success based on restoring all object states, including openness, SplatR does not address the complete task. The claim of 'improvement over the current SOTA' is therefore selective: it holds for three metrics but not for Success, where SplatR is substantially worse than TIDEE+open-everything (3.85 vs 11.70). The paper should either extend the pipeline to handle openness (e.g., by planning a different action type for matched nodes with state changes), or explicitly reframe the contribution as a partial-solution method and not claim overall state-of-the-art performance on the benchmark.
  3. [§3.4–§3.6] The change-detection mechanism is not validated against rendering-induced false positives. SplatR compares a live RGB frame with a virtually rendered image from a 3DGS model trained only on the walkthrough trajectory. At novel viewpoints visited during unshuffle, the render may contain blur, floaters, missing geometry, or other artifacts. Because the pipeline groups any patchwise dissimilarity into object nodes, such artifacts are indistinguishable from genuinely displaced objects. The only filtering step is a CLIP check against the words 'wall' and 'mirror' (§3.5), which cannot cover arbitrary render errors. The paper does not report a no-shuffle control (i.e., running the full pipeline in a scene where no object has been shuffled and measuring the number of detections), nor does it provide any quantitative measure of false-positive detections. The close values of % Fixed and % Fixed Strict in Table 3 are suggestive but do not directly measure false positives, since % Fixed Strict is set to zero only if an already-correct object is moved during rearrangement, not if a spurious object node is generated but not acted upon. A no-shuffle control experiment is necessary to support the claim that the reported improvements reflect actual change detection rather than rendering artifacts.
  4. [§3.3, §3.7] Several parameters and implementation details that are load-bearing for the reported results are not specified. The node-merging rule in Eq. (7) depends on a weighting factor δ and a threshold τ_sim, but neither value is given in the paper or in an appendix. The pointcloud downsampling 'voxel grid size' in §3.3 is also unspecified. Since these parameters affect the quality of object grouping and node merging, and thus directly influence the reported Fixed Strict and Misplaced metrics, the results cannot be reproduced or assessed for robustness without their values. The authors should report all hyperparameters, and ideally include a sensitivity analysis showing that the results are stable to reasonable variations in δ, τ_sim, and the voxel size.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The column labels in Table 3 are ambiguous: the header reads '% Fixed Strict % Fixed', but the text refers to 'Fixed Strict' and 'Fixed' inconsistently, and the value 36.34 for SplatR (HM) differs from the 36.35 reported in Table 1 for the same metric. The authors should clarify which column is which, reconcile the numerical inconsistency, and include the same number of decimal places throughout.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The update rule for the fused CLIP feature vector after node merging is ambiguous as printed: the expression 'nj_o · gj + g / nj_o + 1' should be written as (n_j^o * g_j + g) / (n_j^o + 1) to make the numerator and denominator explicit. This is a minor readability issue but important for reproducibility.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'pointcloudbased representation', 'is fast differentiable rendering capabilities', 'consist of corresponding image', and inconsistent use of 'SplatR' versus 'the agent'. A thorough language edit is needed before publication.
  4. [§3.3] The paper states that it 'leverages the 2D map module from [33]' but does not describe any of its properties, such as resolution, update mechanism, or how traversable regions are determined. Since the exploration strategy is a component of the pipeline, a brief description of this external module would help readers understand the exploration coverage and its potential effect on the final results.
  5. [§5.4] The limitation section mentions that the fixed DINOv2 patch size of 14×14 may be too coarse for small objects, but it does not quantify how many of the 26 episodes contain such objects or whether the reported metrics are affected. The authors could provide a per-object-category breakdown to give readers a sense of the practical impact.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SplatR's central derivation is self-contained and its SOTA claim rests on independent baselines.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: collect walkthrough observations, train a 3D Gaussian Splat of the goal scene, render goal views from the agent's current pose, compare DINOv2 patch features between live and rendered frames (Eq. 6), group dissimilar patches into object nodes, match nodes with CLIP embeddings, and rearrange. None of these steps defines its output in terms of its input. The 3DGS is trained on goal-state observations and then queried at new viewpoints, so the rendered goal image is an independent reconstruction rather than a copy of the current frame. The headline metrics (% Fixed Strict, % Misplaced, % Energy Remaining) are computed by the AI2-THOR benchmark and compared against the published numbers of TIDEE, CA VR, and MaSS in Table 1; this is an external benchmark comparison, not a self-fulfilling fit. The detection and segmentation components (DINOv2, CLIP, SAM) are pretrained on external data and are not fitted to the RoomR episodes, and the paper explicitly states that the results are zero-shot. The authors do cite their own prior work ([17], [26], [27], [35], [47]), but these citations appear in related-work or background context and are not load-bearing for the central claim; no uniqueness theorem or forced-choice premise is imported from those papers. The plausible concern that Gaussian-splat rendering artifacts at novel viewpoints could corrupt patchwise change detection is a robustness or correctness risk, not a circularity, because it does not make the reported prediction equivalent to the method's inputs by construction. Overall, the paper's claimed improvement is a genuine empirical result whose validity depends on implementation quality and evaluation methodology, not on circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result relies on pretrained foundation models and simulator ground-truth pose rather than fitted constants. The main burden is unstated domain assumptions about rendering fidelity, feature reliability, and the representativeness of the 26-episode sample.

free parameters (4)
  • delta (node merging weight)
    Weighting factor in Eq. (7) balancing visual and spatial similarity when merging object nodes; value not reported.
  • tau_sim (node merge threshold)
    Predefined similarity threshold for merging an incoming node with an existing node (Sec. 3.7); value not reported.
  • Pointcloud voxel grid size
    Downsampling resolution used before Gaussian initialization (Sec. 3.3); value not reported.
  • 26-episode random sample
    Evaluation subset randomly sampled from RoomR without seed or inclusion criteria, making the reported numbers non-exhaustive.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Agent pose in AI2-THOR is known accurately enough to place the virtual camera in the Gaussian Splat (Sec. 3.4).
    The consistent-view comparison assumes the rendered goal image aligns with the live image; pose error would cause false change detections.
  • domain assumption DINOv2 patch features and CLIP embeddings are reliable indicators of scene change and object identity in indoor RoomR scenes (Sec. 3.5, 3.8).
    The change detection and matching steps rely entirely on these pretrained features without fine-tuning or validation of their failure modes.
  • domain assumption The 3D Gaussian Splat can render photorealistic novel views of the goal scene from unseen viewpoints (Sec. 3.4).
    Rendering artifacts on walls and mirrors are acknowledged, but the method assumes artifacts are rare or removable by CLIP wall and mirror filtering.
  • domain assumption The 26 sampled episodes are representative of the RoomR benchmark.
    No stratification or confidence intervals are reported, so generalization from this subset is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SplatR : Experience Goal Visual Rearrangement with 3D Gaussian Splatting and Dense Feature Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LCHJJOD

@misc{pith2026241114322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SplatR : Experience Goal Visual Rearrangement with 3D Gaussian Splatting and Dense Feature Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LCHJJOD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14322}
}
read the original abstract

Experience Goal Visual Rearrangement task stands as a foundational challenge within Embodied AI, requiring an agent to construct a robust world model that accurately captures the goal state. The agent uses this world model to restore a shuffled scene to its original configuration, making an accurate representation of the world essential for successfully completing the task. In this work, we present a novel framework that leverages on 3D Gaussian Splatting as a 3D scene representation for experience goal visual rearrangement task. Recent advances in volumetric scene representation like 3D Gaussian Splatting, offer fast rendering of high quality and photo-realistic novel views. Our approach enables the agent to have consistent views of the current and the goal setting of the rearrangement task, which enables the agent to directly compare the goal state and the shuffled state of the world in image space. To compare these views, we propose to use a dense feature matching method with visual features extracted from a foundation model, leveraging its advantages of a more universal feature representation, which facilitates robustness, and generalization. We validate our approach on the AI2-THOR rearrangement challenge benchmark and demonstrate improvements over the current state of the art methods

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SplatR is an Embodied AI agent, that solves the experience goal rearrangement task by building a 3D Gaussian splat as a 3D scene representation. The agent initialized in the goal setting, collects observation and builds the Gaussian Splat to save the goal configuration. Reintroduced into the same world with shuffled object configuration, SplatR explores the scene and renders a consistent view from the Gaussian Splat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the scene change detection and storage framework. Images, observed by the agent and rendered from the Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Mask for an object generated by accumulating similar patches, that are dissimilar across the current and the goal setting. Right: Accurate mask obtained from SAM, for the same object observed during rearrangement. based on the Room Rearrangement dataset (RoomR), built on AI2-THOR [16] virtual environment. The RoomR dataset consist of rearrangement tasks with 120 rooms that include kitchen, living room, bathroo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Physically embodied gaussian splatting: A re- altime correctable world model for robotics, 2024

    Jad Abou-Chakra, Krishan Rana, Feras Dayoub, and Niko S¨underhauf. Physically embodied gaussian splatting: A re- altime correctable world model for robotics, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Chang, Sonia Chernova, Andrew J

    Dhruv Batra, Angel X. Chang, Sonia Chernova, Andrew J. Davison, Jia Deng, Vladlen Koltun, Sergey Levine, Jitendra Malik, Igor Mordatch, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Manolis Savva, and Hao Su. Rearrangement: A challenge for embodied ai,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Dream- scene4d: Dynamic multi-object scene generation from monocular videos, 2024

    Wen-Hsuan Chu, Lei Ke, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. Dream- scene4d: Dynamic multi-object scene generation from monocular videos, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    4d-rotor gaussian splatting: Towards efficient novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes,

    Yuanxing Duan, Fangyin Wei, Qiyu Dai, Yuhang He, Wen- zheng Chen, and Baoquan Chen. 4d-rotor gaussian splatting: Towards efficient novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Trim 3d gaussian splatting for accurate geometry representation, 2024

    Lue Fan, Yuxue Yang, Minxing Li, Hongsheng Li, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Trim 3d gaussian splatting for accurate geometry representation, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Gaussian splashing: Unified particles for versatile motion synthesis and rendering, 2024

    Yutao Feng, Xiang Feng, Yintong Shang, Ying Jiang, Chang Yu, Zeshun Zong, Tianjia Shao, Hongzhi Wu, Kun Zhou, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Yin Yang. Gaussian splashing: Unified particles for versatile motion synthesis and rendering, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Continuous scene representations for embodied ai, 2022

    Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Kiana Ehsani, Shuran Song, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Continuous scene representations for embodied ai, 2022. 2, 3

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Gaussianflow: Splatting gaussian dynamics for 4d content creation, 2024

    Quankai Gao, Qiangeng Xu, Zhe Cao, Ben Mildenhall, Wen- chao Ma, Le Chen, Danhang Tang, and Ulrich Neumann. Gaussianflow: Splatting gaussian dynamics for 4d content creation, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Tenenbaum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull

    Qiao Gu, Alihusein Kuwajerwala, Sacha Morin, Kr- ishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Bipasha Sen, Aditya Agarwal, Corban Rivera, William Paul, Kirsty Ellis, Rama Chellappa, Chuang Gan, Celso Miguel de Melo, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull. Conce...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruc- tion and high-quality mesh rendering, 2023

    Antoine Gu ´edon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruc- tion and high-quality mesh rendering, 2023. 2, 3 8

    2023

  3. [11]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accu- rate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accu- rate radiance fields. In Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Conference Papers ’24. ACM, 2024. 3

    2024

  4. [12]

    Photo-slam: Real-time simultaneous localization and photo- realistic mapping for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras,

    Huajian Huang, Longwei Li, Hui Cheng, and Sai-Kit Yeung. Photo-slam: Real-time simultaneous localization and photo- realistic mapping for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras,

  5. [13]

    Splatam: Splat, track and map 3d gaus- sians for dense rgb-d slam, 2024

    Nikhil Keetha, Jay Karhade, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Gengshan Yang, Sebastian Scherer, Deva Ramanan, and Jonathon Luiten. Splatam: Splat, track and map 3d gaus- sians for dense rgb-d slam, 2024. 3

    2024

  6. [14]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4), 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023

  7. [15]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Segment anything. arXiv:2304.02643, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environ- ment for visual ai, 2022

    Eric Kolve, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Winson Han, Eli VanderBilt, Luca Weihs, Alvaro Herrasti, Matt Deitke, Kiana Ehsani, Daniel Gordon, Yuke Zhu, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Abhinav Gupta, and Ali Farhadi. Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environ- ment for visual ai, 2022. 6

    2022

  9. [17]

    Embodied cog- nition

    Peter K ¨onig, Andrew Melnik, Caspar Goeke, Anna L Gert, Sabine U K ¨onig, and Tim C Kietzmann. Embodied cog- nition. In 2018 6th International Conference on Brain- Computer Interface (BCI), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2018. 8

    2018

  10. [18]

    H. W. Kuhn. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2(1-2):83–97,

  11. [19]

    Gaussnav: Gaussian splatting for visual navigation, 2024

    Xiaohan Lei, Min Wang, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. Gaussnav: Gaussian splatting for visual navigation, 2024. 3

    2024

  12. [20]

    Sgs-slam: Se- mantic gaussian splatting for neural dense slam, 2024

    Mingrui Li, Shuhong Liu, Heng Zhou, Guohao Zhu, Na Cheng, Tianchen Deng, and Hongyu Wang. Sgs-slam: Se- mantic gaussian splatting for neural dense slam, 2024. 3

    2024

  13. [21]

    Spacetime gaus- sian feature splatting for real-time dynamic view synthesis,

    Zhan Li, Zhang Chen, Zhong Li, and Yi Xu. Spacetime gaus- sian feature splatting for real-time dynamic view synthesis,

  14. [22]

    A category agnostic model for visual re- arrangment

    Yuyi Liu, Xinhang Song, Weijie Li, Xiaohan Wang, and Shuqiang Jiang. A category agnostic model for visual re- arrangment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16457–16466, 2024. 2, 3, 7

    2024

  15. [23]

    Manigaussian: Dynamic gaus- sian splatting for multi-task robotic manipulation, 2024

    Guanxing Lu, Shiyi Zhang, Ziwei Wang, Changliu Liu, Ji- wen Lu, and Yansong Tang. Manigaussian: Dynamic gaus- sian splatting for multi-task robotic manipulation, 2024. 3

    2024

  16. [24]

    3d geometry-aware deformable gaussian splatting for dynamic view synthesis,

    Zhicheng Lu, Xiang Guo, Le Hui, Tianrui Chen, Min Yang, Xiao Tang, Feng Zhu, and Yuchao Dai. 3d geometry-aware deformable gaussian splatting for dynamic view synthesis,

  17. [25]

    Hidenobu Matsuki, Riku Murai, Paul H. J. Kelly, and An- drew J. Davison. Gaussian splatting slam, 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    The world as an external memory: The price of saccades in a sensorimotor task

    Andrew Melnik, Felix Sch ¨uler, Constantin A Rothkopf, and Peter K ¨onig. The world as an external memory: The price of saccades in a sensorimotor task. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 12:253, 2018. 8

    2018

  19. [27]

    Uniteam: Open vo- cabulary mobile manipulation challenge

    Andrew Melnik, Michael B ¨uttner, Leon Harz, Lyon Brown, Gora Chand Nandi, Arjun PS, Gaurav Kumar Yadav, Rahul Kala, and Robert Haschke. Uniteam: Open vo- cabulary mobile manipulation challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08611, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Beings: Bayesian embodied image-goal navigation with gaussian splatting, 2024

    Wugang Meng, Tianfu Wu, Huan Yin, and Fumin Zhang. Beings: Bayesian embodied image-goal navigation with gaussian splatting, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features with- out supervision, 2024

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mah- moud Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michae...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting,

    Minghan Qin, Wanhua Li, Jiawei Zhou, Haoqian Wang, and Hanspeter Pfister. Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting,

  23. [31]

    Feature splatting: Language-driven physics-based scene syn- thesis and editing, 2024

    Ri-Zhao Qiu, Ge Yang, Weijia Zeng, and Xiaolong Wang. Feature splatting: Language-driven physics-based scene syn- thesis and editing, 2024. 3

    2024

  24. [32]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. 5

    2021

  25. [33]

    Harley, Paul Schydlo, Michael J

    Gabriel Sarch, Zhaoyuan Fang, Adam W. Harley, Paul Schydlo, Michael J. Tarr, Saurabh Gupta, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. Tidee: Tidying up novel rooms using visuo- semantic commonsense priors, 2022. 2, 3, 4, 7

    2022

  26. [34]

    A fast marching level set method for monotoni- cally advancing fronts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(4):1591–1595, 1996

    J A Sethian. A fast marching level set method for monotoni- cally advancing fronts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(4):1591–1595, 1996. 4

    1996

  27. [35]

    Language-conditioned semantic search- based policy for robotic manipulation tasks

    Jannik Sheikh, Andrew Melnik, Gora Chand Nandi, and Robert Haschke. Language-conditioned semantic search- based policy for robotic manipulation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05925, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Language embedded 3d gaussians for open- vocabulary scene understanding, 2023

    Jin-Chuan Shi, Miao Wang, Hao-Bin Duan, and Shao- Hua Guan. Language embedded 3d gaussians for open- vocabulary scene understanding, 2023. 3

    2023

  29. [37]

    Splat-mover: Multi-stage, open- vocabulary robotic manipulation via editable gaussian splat- ting, 2024

    Ola Shorinwa, Johnathan Tucker, Aliyah Smith, Aiden Swann, Timothy Chen, Roya Firoozi, Monroe Kennedy III au2, and Mac Schwager. Splat-mover: Multi-stage, open- vocabulary robotic manipulation via editable gaussian splat- ting, 2024. 3

    2024

  30. [38]

    Sukhatme, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov

    Brandon Trabucco, Gunnar Sigurdsson, Robinson Pira- muthu, Gaurav S. Sukhatme, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. A simple approach for visual rearrangement: 3d mapping and semantic search, 2022. 2, 3, 7

    2022

  31. [39]

    Games: Mesh-based adapt- ing and modification of gaussian splatting, 2024

    Joanna Waczy ´nska, Piotr Borycki, Sławomir Tadeja, Jacek Tabor, and Przemysław Spurek. Games: Mesh-based adapt- ing and modification of gaussian splatting, 2024. 3 9

    2024

  32. [40]

    Visual room rearrangement, 2021

    Luca Weihs, Matt Deitke, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Visual room rearrangement, 2021. 2, 3, 5, 6

    2021

  33. [41]

    Gs2mesh: Sur- face reconstruction from gaussian splatting via novel stereo views, 2024

    Yaniv Wolf, Amit Bracha, and Ron Kimmel. Gs2mesh: Sur- face reconstruction from gaussian splatting via novel stereo views, 2024. 3

    2024

  34. [42]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,

  35. [43]

    Bridging 3d gaussian and mesh for freeview video rendering,

    Yuting Xiao, Xuan Wang, Jiafei Li, Hongrui Cai, Yanbo Fan, Nan Xue, Minghui Yang, Yujun Shen, and Shenghua Gao. Bridging 3d gaussian and mesh for freeview video rendering,

  36. [44]

    Physgaussian: Physics- integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics, 2024

    Tianyi Xie, Zeshun Zong, Yuxing Qiu, Xuan Li, Yutao Feng, Yin Yang, and Chenfanfu Jiang. Physgaussian: Physics- integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics, 2024. 3

    2024

  37. [45]

    Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting, 2024

    Chi Yan, Delin Qu, Dan Xu, Bin Zhao, Zhigang Wang, Dong Wang, and Xuelong Li. Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting, 2024. 3

    2024

  38. [46]

    Real- time photorealistic dynamic scene representation and render- ing with 4d gaussian splatting, 2024

    Zeyu Yang, Hongye Yang, Zijie Pan, and Li Zhang. Real- time photorealistic dynamic scene representation and render- ing with 4d gaussian splatting, 2024. 3

    2024

  39. [47]

    Towards open-world mobile manipulation in homes: Lessons from the neurips 2023 homerobot open vocab- ulary mobile manipulation challenge

    Sriram Yenamandra, Arun Ramachandran, Mukul Khanna, Karmesh Yadav, Jay Vakil, Andrew Melnik, Michael B¨uttner, Leon Harz, Lyon Brown, Gora Chand Nandi, et al. Towards open-world mobile manipulation in homes: Lessons from the neurips 2023 homerobot open vocab- ulary mobile mani...

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Reconstruction and simulation of elastic objects with spring- mass 3d gaussians, 2024

    Licheng Zhong, Hong-Xing Yu, Jiajun Wu, and Yunzhu Li. Reconstruction and simulation of elastic objects with spring- mass 3d gaussians, 2024. 3

    2024

  41. [49]

    Feature 3dgs: Supercharging 3d gaussian splatting to enable distilled feature fields, 2024

    Shijie Zhou, Haoran Chang, Sicheng Jiang, Zhiwen Fan, Ze- hao Zhu, Dejia Xu, Pradyumna Chari, Suya You, Zhangyang Wang, and Achuta Kadambi. Feature 3dgs: Supercharging 3d gaussian splatting to enable distilled feature fields, 2024. 3

    2024

  42. [50]

    Semgauss-slam: Dense semantic gaussian splatting slam, 2024

    Siting Zhu, Renjie Qin, Guangming Wang, Jiuming Liu, and Hesheng Wang. Semgauss-slam: Dense semantic gaussian splatting slam, 2024. 3

    2024

  43. [51]

    Fmgs: Foundation model embedded 3d gaussian splatting for holistic 3d scene understanding, 2024

    Xingxing Zuo, Pouya Samangouei, Yunwen Zhou, Yan Di, and Mingyang Li. Fmgs: Foundation model embedded 3d gaussian splatting for holistic 3d scene understanding, 2024. 3

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zwicker, H

    M. Zwicker, H. Pfister, J. van Baar, and M. Gross. Ewa vol- ume splatting. In Proceedings Visualization, 2001. VIS ’01., pages 29–538, 2001. 4 10

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.