Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 74 references

SelfSplat: Pose-Free and 3D Prior-Free Generalizable 3D Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 SelfSplat jointly estimates depth, poses, and 3D Gaussians from unposed image triplets using only photometric and rendering losses, beating prior pose-free methods on three real-world datasets with no per-scene fitting.

desk verdict A genuinely self-supervised feed-forward 3D-GS pipeline with strong NVS results, but the top-line SOTA claim is undercut by missing the closest baselines and by overstated pose/geometry claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17190 v5 pith:LUYP26YT submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV

Gyeongjin Kang , Jisang Yoo , Jihyeon Park , Seungtae Nam , Hyeonsoo Im , Sangheon Shin , Sangpil Kim , Eunbyung Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingpose-freereconstructionself-superviseddepthestimationgeneralizablenovelviewsynthesismonocularvideorelativecameraposecross-datasetgeneralizationunposedmulti-viewimages
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

SelfSplat sets out to show that a single feed-forward network can reconstruct a 3D scene and synthesize novel views from a triplet of images whose camera poses are unknown, without any pretrained 3D priors or per-scene optimization. It does this by coupling self-supervised depth and pose estimation, trained with photometric reprojection losses, to a pixel-aligned 3D Gaussian Splatting pipeline trained with a rendering loss. The two losses reinforce each other: the reprojection signal positions Gaussians consistently, and the rendering signal sharpens pose and depth estimates. If the claim holds, reconstruction pipelines no longer need a separate structure-from-motion or pose-estimation stage, and models can be trained directly on large unlabeled video collections. The paper reports higher appearance and geometry scores than prior pose-free generalizable baselines on RealEstate10K, ACID, and DL3DV, along with stronger cross-dataset generalization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pixel-aligned 3D Gaussian representation fused with a self-supervised depth and pose loop. For each context image the network predicts per-pixel Gaussian attributes and a depth map; the depth is refined by a small U-Net that takes the predicted poses as Plücker ray embeddings, and the poses are estimated by a matching-aware network that concatenates cross-view features and camera-intrinsic ray embeddings. All Gaussians are transformed into the target view's coordinate frame by the predicted SE(3) poses and rendered with a differentiable splatting rasterizer. The training signal is the sum of a photometric reprojection loss and a rendering loss, with no ground-truth depth, poses, or 3D supervision, so the Gaussians act as the geometric substrate that makes the two loss terms share a consistent 3D scale.

What would settle it

Take a trained SelfSplat model and feed it held-out image triplets whose camera intrinsics are deliberately mis-specified, for example a focal length scaled by 20 percent, without changing the images. If pose and novel-view metrics stay about the same, the known-intrinsics premise is not what carries the method; if they degrade sharply, the premise is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that an explicit 3D representation and a self-supervised geometric learning objective can be trained jointly from unposed videos with neither ground-truth poses nor pretrained 3D models, and that the two sides improve each other. SelfSplat predicts per-pixel 3D Gaussian attributes and depth for the two context views, predicts the relative SE(3) poses connecting context to target, unprojects the Gaussians into a common target-centered coordinate frame, and renders the target view through differentiable splatting. Training minimizes a photometric reprojection loss between actual and warped views together with a rendering loss between actual and splatted views. The ablation shows that removing either loss degrades pose or rendering accuracy: removing the rendering loss jumps rotation error from about 1.0 to 8.6 degrees and translation error from about 13.7 to 64.4 degrees on RealEstate10K at 50,000 iterations. The result is a single forward pass that yields depth, poses, and a 3D scene representation for novel-view synthesis, with no per-scene fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the camera's internal calibration is known and correct for every input; if those numbers are wrong, the ray embeddings and the unprojection that place Gaussians in 3D will be wrong in a way the photometric and rendering losses cannot fix, because both losses compare images in 2D.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single feed-forward pass on an unposed image triplet yields depth, relative camera poses, and a 3D Gaussian scene, so reconstruction pipelines can skip a separate structure-from-motion or pose-estimation preprocessing stage.
  • Because training uses only photometric and rendering losses, the model can be trained on large collections of raw monocular video without ground-truth poses, depths, or 3D scans.
  • The rendering loss feeds gradients back into pose estimation with an explicit functional form that the paper derives for rotation and translation, so the 3D representation actively regularizes pose learning rather than merely consuming poses.
  • Cross-dataset experiments, training on one dataset and testing on another without fine-tuning, show that the learned geometry transfers to new scene distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the reciprocal pose-rendering loop transfers, adding a differentiable explicit renderer to other self-supervised depth and pose systems could reduce drift on long trajectories.
  • Beyond the paper: a natural extension the paper does not pursue is estimating camera intrinsics jointly with poses and depths, which would remove the known-calibration assumption from the pipeline.
  • Beyond the paper: because the method needs only unposed video, it could plausibly be pretrained on much larger and more diverse video collections than the three datasets reported, which would test whether the cross-dataset generalization continues to scale.
  • Beyond the paper: the supplementary experiments with three and four context views suggest the model already handles longer camera trajectories, but the paper stops short of claiming a full simultaneous localization and mapping system.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes SelfSplat, a feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting network that, given unposed image triplets, jointly predicts per-pixel Gaussian attributes, depth maps, and relative camera poses. It is trained end-to-end with a photometric reprojection loss and a rendering loss, without ground-truth poses or depth and without per-scene fine-tuning. The method combines a CroCo-initialized monocular encoder, a multi-view Swin Transformer encoder, a DPT-style fusion head, a matching-aware pose network, and a pose-aware depth refinement module. It is evaluated for novel view synthesis and relative pose estimation on RealEstate10K, ACID, and DL3DV, with additional cross-dataset generalization experiments, multi-context-view tests, and ablations. The paper reports strong appearance metrics against VAE, DBARF, FlowCAM, and CoPoNeRF, and the abstract claims 'superior results over previous state-of-the-art methods in both appearance and geometry quality.'

Significance. If the results hold, SelfSplat is a useful contribution: a single-forward-pass, optimization-free model that removes pose supervision and per-scene fine-tuning for 3D-GS reconstruction. The ablations are informative and support the design choices: the reprojection loss and rendering loss cooperate, and the matching-aware pose network and depth refinement module each contribute measurable improvements. The cross-dataset generalization results (Table 7) and the extension to more than two context views (Table 11) strengthen the practical value. However, the state-of-the-art claim is not yet fully verified because the closest pose-free 3D-GS baselines cited in the paper, PF3plat and GGRT, are absent from the main comparisons, and the pose-estimation prose is contradicted by the small-overlap entries in Tables 4 and 5. The claim of superior 'geometry quality' is also not backed by any direct geometric metric. These issues are addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §5.1, §5.2, Tables 2–6] The abstract's claim that SelfSplat 'achieves superior results over previous state-of-the-art methods' is a comparative statement, but the two most relevant pose-free feed-forward 3D-GS methods cited in the paper, PF3plat [23] and GGRT [32], never appear in the main benchmark tables. This is especially conspicuous for DL3DV, where the data split is described as 'following PF3plat' (Section 5.1) but Table 6 compares only FlowCAM. The supplementary Splatt3R comparison (Table 12) is on DTU, uses a model trained on ScanNet++, and reports only appearance metrics, so it does not settle the ranking among pose-free 3D-GS models. I request that the authors either include PF3plat and GGRT under the same evaluation protocol or explicitly limit the superiority claim to the baselines actually compared.
  2. [§5.2, Tables 4 and 5] The sentence 'Our approach consistently achieves lower errors in both average and median deviations' is not consistent with the tabulated results for the small-overlap category. On RE10k (Table 4), CoPoNeRF has lower average rotation error (1.281° vs. 1.523°) and lower average translation error (10.173° vs. 14.954°) than SelfSplat; on ACID (Table 5), CoPoNeRF again has lower small-overlap rotation error (1.731° vs. 1.787°) and translation error (20.572° vs. 21.631°). The sentence should be corrected, and a brief discussion of the small-overlap failure mode should be added, since this is the regime where the matching-aware pose network was expected to help most.
  3. [Abstract, §5.2, Table 12] The claim of superior 'geometry quality' is not supported by any direct geometric evaluation. The paper reports appearance metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS) and relative pose errors, but no depth-error or surface-accuracy metrics; the depth discussion in Fig. 10 is qualitative. Furthermore, in the only direct comparison against a 3D-GS method on a shared benchmark, Table 12, the pose-required MVSplat outperforms SelfSplat on PSNR (13.94 vs. 13.14), SSIM, and LPIPS on DTU, which is not mentioned in the text. I recommend either adding quantitative geometry metrics or restricting the 'geometry quality' claim to the criteria actually evaluated.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 6 caption] The caption contains the typo 'pose estimaion'; it should read 'pose estimation'.
  2. [Tables 1, 2–6 and text] The spellings 'CoPoNeRF' and 'CopoNeRF' are used inconsistently across the paper; please unify to a single convention.
  3. [Tables 2–6] The label 'V AE' appears with a space that looks like a LaTeX artifact; please typeset it consistently as 'VAE'.
  4. [§4.2] The Plücker ray embedding E_ext and the intrinsic ray embedding E_int are described only in prose; explicit formulas for their construction would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Supplementary B.3] The sentence 'The main reason Splatt3R cannot estimate a consistent scene scale is its reliance on a fixed pretrained MASt3R model, which is trained using metric camera poses, and difference between estimated intrinsic parameters and ground truth intrinsic parameters' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten.
  6. [§5.3, Table 8] In the 'No Rendering Loss' row, the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS entries are listed as '-'; please add a footnote explaining that these values are omitted because training without the rendering loss did not produce usable renders.
  7. [§5.1] The paper states that all baselines were trained with the same curriculum; please clarify whether the published baseline numbers were reproduced by the authors or whether the models were retrained with their own scheduler, and whether this affects comparability with numbers reported in the original papers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed results are empirical evaluations against held-out poses and images, and the self-supervised training loop is not an epistemic circularity.

full rationale

SelfSplat's central claim is an empirical performance claim evaluated on RealEstate10K, ACID, DL3DV, and cross-dataset transfers against held-out ground-truth frames and poses. The network is trained with photometric reprojection and rendering losses (Eqs. 1-6), and pose, depth, and Gaussian attributes are jointly optimized rather than derived from one another by construction. The assumption of known camera intrinsics is a stated input condition (Section 4.1), not a circular reduction. The paper uses CroCo self-supervised weights, which are external and not by the present authors, and its ablations compare variants against the full model. The absence of PF3plat and GGRT from the main benchmark comparisons is an evidential gap affecting the strength of the 'state-of-the-art' claim, but it is not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation chain. Under the stated rules, this is a normal non-circular empirical architecture paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on training data from public monocular video datasets, known intrinsics, and static-scene photometric consistency. No new physical entities are introduced; the architecture combines existing building blocks (pixel-aligned Gaussians, DPT, U-Net, CroCo, Swin Transformer). The main hand-chosen numbers are loss weights and training-curriculum settings.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_1
    Loss weight on Lproj in Eq. (5), selected by hand; standard in self-supervised depth estimation.
  • lambda_2
    Loss weight on Lren in Eq. (5), selected by hand.
  • omega
    SSIM/L1 balance in the photometric loss Eq. (2), following Godard et al. [18].
  • gamma_1
    Weight on the SSIM term in the rendering loss Eq. (6).
  • gamma_2
    Weight on the L2 term in the rendering loss Eq. (6).
  • SH_order = 1
    Spherical harmonics order set to 1 for RGB color (Supplement A.2); a design choice that limits view-dependent appearance.
  • frame_distance_schedule = 5 to 25 (RE10k/ACID), 2 to 10 (DL3DV)
    Training curriculum that increases context frame separation; it affects the difficulty and scale of learned poses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Camera intrinsics are known from sensor metadata at training and inference time.
    Stated in Section 4.1; the ray embedding, Plücker embedding, unprojection, and pose scale all depend on K.
  • domain assumption Scene content is static between the context and target frames, so photometric consistency is a valid training signal.
    Standard self-supervised depth and pose assumption; the Limitations section acknowledges failure on dynamic scenes.
  • domain assumption Pixel appearance of a surface is approximately constant across views (brightness constancy).
    The reprojection loss Lproj uses SSIM and L1 between warped and target images; non-Lambertian surfaces and occlusions violate this.
  • domain assumption CroCo v2 pretrained weights are a self-supervised prior and do not count as a 3D prior for the paper's claims.
    The '3D prior-free' claim rests on this classification; CroCo v2 is trained with cross-view completion on image pairs (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SelfSplat: Pose-Free and 3D Prior-Free Generalizable 3D Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUYP26YT

@misc{pith2026241117190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SelfSplat: Pose-Free and 3D Prior-Free Generalizable 3D Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUYP26YT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17190}
}
read the original abstract

We propose SelfSplat, a novel 3D Gaussian Splatting model designed to perform pose-free and 3D prior-free generalizable 3D reconstruction from unposed multi-view images. These settings are inherently ill-posed due to the lack of ground-truth data, learned geometric information, and the need to achieve accurate 3D reconstruction without finetuning, making it difficult for conventional methods to achieve high-quality results. Our model addresses these challenges by effectively integrating explicit 3D representations with self-supervised depth and pose estimation techniques, resulting in reciprocal improvements in both pose accuracy and 3D reconstruction quality. Furthermore, we incorporate a matching-aware pose estimation network and a depth refinement module to enhance geometry consistency across views, ensuring more accurate and stable 3D reconstructions. To present the performance of our method, we evaluated it on large-scale real-world datasets, including RealEstate10K, ACID, and DL3DV. SelfSplat achieves superior results over previous state-of-the-art methods in both appearance and geometry quality, also demonstrates strong cross-dataset generalization capabilities. Extensive ablation studies and analysis also validate the effectiveness of our proposed methods. Code and pretrained models are available at https://gynjn.github.io/selfsplat/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of SelfSplat. Given unposed multi-view images as input, we predict depth and Gaussian attributes from the images, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Matching-aware pose network (a) and depth refinement module (b). We leverage cross-view features from input images to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on RE10k (top two rows) and ACID (bottom row) datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on DL3DV dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Epipolar lines visualization. We draw the lines from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation studies on our proposed component. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detailed 3D Gaussian prediction architecture. This module takes only context images as input. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of camera trajectory on RE10k dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on DTU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of depth visualization on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on RE10k dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on ACID dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on DL3DV dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Epipolar lines visualization on RE10k dataset. We draw the lines from reference to target frame using relative camera pose. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Pf3plat: Pose-free feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting

    Sunghwan Hong et al. Pf3plat: Pose-free feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv:2410.22128, 2024. 2, 5

    arXiv 2024

  2. [32]

    Ggrt: Towards generalizable 3d gaussians with- out pose priors in real-time

    Hao Li et al. Ggrt: Towards generalizable 3d gaussians with- out pose priors in real-time. arXiv:2403.10147, 2024. 1, 2, 4

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Unsuper- vised scale-consistent depth and ego-motion learning from monocular video

    Jiawang Bian, Zhichao Li, Naiyan Wang, Huangying Zhan, Chunhua Shen, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Ian Reid. Unsuper- vised scale-consistent depth and ego-motion learning from monocular video. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 32, 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  4. [2]

    Nope-nerf: Optimising neu- ral radiance field with no pose prior

    Wenjing Bian, Zirui Wang, Kejie Li, Jia-Wang Bian, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Nope-nerf: Optimising neu- ral radiance field with no pose prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4160–4169, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [3]

    pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction

    David Charatan, Sizhe Lester Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Vincent Sitzmann. pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19457–19467, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    Mvsnerf: Fast general- izable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Fuqiang Zhao, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Fanbo Xiang, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Mvsnerf: Fast general- izable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 14124–14133, 2021. 4

    2021

  7. [5]

    Adaptformer: Adapting vision transformers for scalable visual recogni- tion

    Shoufa Chen, Chongjian Ge, Zhan Tong, Jiangliu Wang, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Ping Luo. Adaptformer: Adapting vision transformers for scalable visual recogni- tion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:16664–16678, 2022. 6, 9

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Dbarf: Deep bundle-adjusting generalizable neural radiance fields

    Yu Chen and Gim Hee Lee. Dbarf: Deep bundle-adjusting generalizable neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24–34, 2023. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

    work page 2023

Show all 74 references
  1. [7]

    Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images

    Yuedong Chen, Haofei Xu, Chuanxia Zheng, Bohan Zhuang, Marc Pollefeys, Andreas Geiger, Tat-Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14627, 2024. 2, 4, 5, 9, 11

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Self-supervised pretraining and finetuning for monocular depth and visual odometry

    Boris Chidlovskii and Leonid Antsfeld. Self-supervised pretraining and finetuning for monocular depth and visual odometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11019, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches

    Kyunghyun Cho. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1259, 2014. 2

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Deep global registration

    Christopher Choy, Wei Dong, and Vladlen Koltun. Deep global registration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2514–2523, 2020. 2

    2020

  5. [12]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes

    Angela Dai, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5828–5839, 2017. 11

    2017

  6. [13]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 4

    2010 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Learning to render novel views from wide-baseline stereo pairs

    Yilun Du, Cameron Smith, Ayush Tewari, and Vincent Sitz- mann. Learning to render novel views from wide-baseline stereo pairs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4970– 4980, 2023. 1

    2023

  8. [15]

    Roma: Robust dense fea- ture matching

    Johan Edstedt, Qiyu Sun, Georg B ¨okman, M ˚arten Wadenb¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. Roma: Robust dense fea- ture matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19790– 19800, 2024. 6, 9

    2024

  9. [16]

    Fusionsense: Bridging common sense, vi- sion, and touch for robust sparse-view reconstruction

    Irving Fang, Kairui Shi, Xujin He, Siqi Tan, Yifan Wang, Hanwen Zhao, Hung-Jui Huang, Wenzhen Yuan, Chen Feng, and Jing Zhang. Fusionsense: Bridging common sense, vi- sion, and touch for robust sparse-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08282, 2024. 1

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Efros, and Xiaolong Wang

    Yang Fu, Sifei Liu, Amey Kulkarni, Jan Kautz, Alexei A. Efros, and Xiaolong Wang. Colmap-free 3d gaussian splat- ting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20796– 20805, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [18]

    Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation

    Cl ´ement Godard, Oisin Mac Aodha, Michael Firman, and Gabriel J Brostow. Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 3828–3838,

  12. [19]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 4

    2016

  13. [20]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 16000– 16009, 2022. 2

    2022

  14. [21]

    Epipolar transformers

    Yihui He, Rui Yan, Katerina Fragkiadaki, and Shoou-I Yu. Epipolar transformers. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 7779–7788, 2020. 4

    2020

  15. [22]

    Unifying corre- spondence, pose and nerf for pose-free novel view synthesis from stereo pairs

    Sunghwan Hong, Jaewoo Jung, Heeseong Shin, Jiaolong Yang, Seungryong Kim, and Chong Luo. Unifying corre- spondence, pose and nerf for pose-free novel view synthesis from stereo pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07246 , 2023. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Large scale multi-view stereopsis eval- uation

    Rasmus Jensen, Anders Dahl, George V ogiatzis, Engin Tola, and Henrik Aanæs. Large scale multi-view stereopsis eval- uation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 406–413, 2014. 11

    2014

  17. [25]

    Vr-gs: a physical dynamics-aware interactive gaussian splatting system in virtual reality

    Ying Jiang, Chang Yu, Tianyi Xie, Xuan Li, Yutao Feng, Huamin Wang, Minchen Li, Henry Lau, Feng Gao, Yin Yang, et al. Vr-gs: a physical dynamics-aware interactive gaussian splatting system in virtual reality. In ACM SIG- GRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–1, 2024. 1

    2024

  18. [26]

    Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam

    Nikhil Keetha, Jay Karhade, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Gengshan Yang, Sebastian Scherer, Deva Ramanan, and Jonathon Luiten. Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

    2024

  19. [27]

    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 Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1,

  20. [28]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization

    Diederik P Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 9

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Video autoencoder: self-supervised disentanglement of static 3d structure and motion

    Zihang Lai, Sifei Liu, Alexei A Efros, and Xiaolong Wang. Video autoencoder: self-supervised disentanglement of static 3d structure and motion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9730–9740, 2021. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

    2021

  22. [30]

    Pulsar: Effi- cient sphere-based neural rendering

    Christoph Lassner and Michael Zollhofer. Pulsar: Effi- cient sphere-based neural rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1440–1449, 2021. 1

    2021

  23. [31]

    Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J´erˆome Revaud. Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09756, 2024. 3, 11

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Wei-Chiu Ma, Antonio Torralba, and Si- mon Lucey. Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5741–5751, 2021. 2

    2021

  25. [34]

    Feature pyra- mid networks for object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Doll ´ar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature pyra- mid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 2117–2125, 2017. 4

    2017

  26. [35]

    Dl3dv-10k: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision

    Lu Ling, Yichen Sheng, Zhi Tu, Wentian Zhao, Cheng Xin, Kun Wan, Lantao Yu, Qianyu Guo, Zixun Yu, Yawen Lu, et al. Dl3dv-10k: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , p...

    2024

  27. [36]

    Infinite na- ture: Perpetual view generation of natural scenes from a sin- gle image

    Andrew Liu, Richard Tucker, Varun Jampani, Ameesh Makadia, Noah Snavely, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Infinite na- ture: Perpetual view generation of natural scenes from a sin- gle image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14458–14467, 20...

    2021

  28. [37]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 4

    2021

  29. [38]

    Optical models for direct volume rendering

    Nelson Max. Optical models for direct volume rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,

  30. [39]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1

    2021

  31. [40]

    Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 12179–12188, 2021. 4, 9

    2021

  32. [41]

    Language embedded radiance fields for zero-shot task-oriented grasping

    Adam Rashid, Satvik Sharma, Chung Min Kim, Justin Kerr, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Ken Gold- berg. Language embedded radiance fields for zero-shot task-oriented grasping. In 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023. 1

    2023

  33. [42]

    The 8- point algorithm as an inductive bias for relative pose predic- tion by vits

    Chris Rockwell, Justin Johnson, and David F Fouhey. The 8- point algorithm as an inductive bias for relative pose predic- tion by vits. In 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 1–11. IEEE, 2022. 2

    2022

  34. [43]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 12

    2022

  35. [44]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, pa...

    2015

  36. [45]

    Splatt3r: Zero-shot gaussian splat- ting from uncalibarated image pairs

    Brandon Smart, Chuanxia Zheng, Iro Laina, and Vic- tor Adrian Prisacariu. Splatt3r: Zero-shot gaussian splat- ting from uncalibarated image pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13912, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Flowcam: training generalizable 3d radiance fields without camera poses via pixel-aligned scene flow

    Cameron Smith, Yilun Du, Ayush Tewari, and Vincent Sitz- mann. Flowcam: training generalizable 3d radiance fields without camera poses via pixel-aligned scene flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00180, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Sc-depthv3: Robust self- supervised monocular depth estimation for dynamic scenes

    Libo Sun, Jia-Wang Bian, Huangying Zhan, Wei Yin, Ian Reid, and Chunhua Shen. Sc-depthv3: Robust self- supervised monocular depth estimation for dynamic scenes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence (TPAMI), 2023. 9

    2023

  39. [48]

    Sc-depthv3: Robust self- supervised monocular depth estimation for dynamic scenes

    Libo Sun, Jia-Wang Bian, Huangying Zhan, Wei Yin, Ian Reid, and Chunhua Shen. Sc-depthv3: Robust self- supervised monocular depth estimation for dynamic scenes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 2023. 2

    2023

  40. [49]

    Generative pretraining in multi- modality

    Quan Sun, Qiying Yu, Yufeng Cui, Fan Zhang, Xiaosong Zhang, Yueze Wang, Hongcheng Gao, Jingjing Liu, Tiejun Huang, and Xinlong Wang. Generative pretraining in multi- modality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05222, 2023. 12

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3d recon- struction

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Chrisitian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3d recon- struction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 10208– 10217, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 9

    2024

  42. [51]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  43. [52]

    Semantic segmentation using vision transformers: A survey.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 126:106669, 2023

    Hans Thisanke, Chamli Deshan, Kavindu Chamith, Sa- chith Seneviratne, Rajith Vidanaarachchi, and Damayanthi Herath. Semantic segmentation using vision transformers: A survey.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 126:106669, 2023. 4

    2023

  44. [53]

    Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training

    Zhan Tong, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Limin Wang. Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:10078–10093, 2022. 2

    2022

  45. [54]

    Pf-lrm: Pose-free large reconstruction model for joint pose and shape prediction

    Peng Wang, Hao Tan, Sai Bi, Yinghao Xu, Fujun Luan, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Wenping Wang, Zexiang Xu, and Kai Zhang. Pf-lrm: Pose-free large reconstruction model for joint pose and shape prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12024, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Ibr- net: Learning multi-view image-based rendering

    Qianqian Wang, Zhicheng Wang, Kyle Genova, Pratul P Srinivasan, Howard Zhou, Jonathan T Barron, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noah Snavely, and Thomas Funkhouser. Ibr- net: Learning multi-view image-based rendering. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and ...

    2021

  47. [56]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy

    Shuzhe Wang et al. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20697–20709, 2024. 3, 11

    2024

  48. [57]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 13(4): 600–612, 2004. 3, 6

    2004

  49. [58]

    Croco: Self-supervised pre-training for 3d vision tasks by cross-view completion

    Philippe Weinzaepfel, Vincent Leroy, Thomas Lucas, Ro- main Br´egier, Yohann Cabon, Vaibhav Arora, Leonid Ants- feld, Boris Chidlovskii, Gabriela Csurka, and J ´erˆome Re- vaud. Croco: Self-supervised pre-training for 3d vision tasks by cross-view completion. Advances in Neura...

    2022

  50. [59]

    Croco v2: Improved cross-view completion pre- training for stereo matching and optical flow

    Philippe Weinzaepfel, Thomas Lucas, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Vaibhav Arora, Romain Br ´egier, Gabriela Csurka, Leonid Antsfeld, Boris Chidlovskii, and J ´erˆome Revaud. Croco v2: Improved cross-view completion pre- training for stereo matching and optical flow. InProceedin...

    2023

  51. [60]

    Synsin: End-to-end view synthesis from a sin- gle image

    Olivia Wiles, Georgia Gkioxari, Richard Szeliski, and Justin Johnson. Synsin: End-to-end view synthesis from a sin- gle image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7467–7477,

  52. [61]

    Unifying flow, stereo and depth estimation

    Haofei Xu, Jing Zhang, Jianfei Cai, Hamid Rezatofighi, Fisher Yu, Dacheng Tao, and Andreas Geiger. Unifying flow, stereo and depth estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023. 9

    2023

  53. [62]

    Depthsplat: Connecting gaussian splatting and depth

    Haofei Xu, Songyou Peng, Fangjinhua Wang, Hermann Blum, Daniel Barath, Andreas Geiger, and Marc Pollefeys. Depthsplat: Connecting gaussian splatting and depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13862, 2024. 4, 9

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Vr-nerf: High- fidelity virtualized walkable spaces

    Linning Xu, Vasu Agrawal, William Laney, Tony Garcia, Aayush Bansal, Changil Kim, Samuel Rota Bul `o, Lorenzo Porzi, Peter Kontschieder, Aljaˇz Boˇziˇc, et al. Vr-nerf: High- fidelity virtualized walkable spaces. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers, pages 1–12, 2023. 1

    2023

  55. [64]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10371–10381, 2024. 4, 9

    2024

  56. [65]

    Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Yao Yao, Zixin Luo, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, and Long Quan. Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vi- sion (ECCV), pages 767–783, 2018. 4

    2018

  57. [66]

    No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images

    Botao Ye, Sifei Liu, Haofei Xu, Li Xueting, Marc Pollefeys, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Peng Songyou. No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24207, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  58. [67]

    gsplat: An open-source library for gaussian splatting

    Vickie Ye, Ruilong Li, Justin Kerr, Matias Turkulainen, Brent Yi, Zhuoyang Pan, Otto Seiskari, Jianbo Ye, Jeffrey Hu, Matthew Tancik, et al. gsplat: An open-source library for gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06765, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Geonet: Unsupervised learn- ing of dense depth, optical flow and camera pose

    Zhichao Yin and Jianping Shi. Geonet: Unsupervised learn- ing of dense depth, optical flow and camera pose. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 1983–1992, 2018. 3

    1983

  60. [69]

    pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images

    Alex Yu, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4578–4587, 2021. 1, 9

    2021

  61. [70]

    Transplat: Generalizable 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images with transformers

    Chuanrui Zhang, Yingshuang Zou, Zhuoling Li, Minmin Yi, and Haoqian Wang. Transplat: Generalizable 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13770, 2024. 4, 5, 9

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 6

    2018

  63. [72]

    In-place scene labelling and understanding with implicit scene representation

    Shuaifeng Zhi, Tristan Laidlow, Stefan Leutenegger, and An- drew J Davison. In-place scene labelling and understanding with implicit scene representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 15838–15847, 2021. 1

    2021

  64. [73]

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

    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. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Compu...

    2024

  65. [74]

    Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video

    Tinghui Zhou, Matthew Brown, Noah Snavely, and David G Lowe. Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1851–1858, 2017. 3

    2017

  66. [75]

    Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images

    Tinghui Zhou, Richard Tucker, John Flynn, Graham Fyffe, and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09817, 2018. 2, 5, 9, 11

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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