Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SmileSplat: Generalizable Gaussian Splats for Unconstrained Sparse Images

T0 review · 3 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 From two unposed images, SmileSplat builds render-ready Gaussian scenes.

desk verdict Solid engineering idea with a real new mechanism—optimizing intrinsics through Gaussian splatting—but the Re10K SOTA claim rests on an unmatched test-time budget and should be re-evaluated before being trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18072 v1 pith:G7LDW5WW submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CV

Yanyan Li , Yixin Fang , Federico Tombari , Gim Hee Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords generalizableGaussiansplattingsparse-viewrenderingunposedimagescameracalibration-freebundleadjustmentsurfelsdepthprediction
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

SmileSplat tackles the setting where a 3D scene must be rendered from just two overlapping photographs with no camera poses and no intrinsics supplied. The paper claims that a network can predict pixel-aligned Gaussian surfels from the images, then refine the surfels together with the unknown camera intrinsics and extrinsics in a joint bundle-adjustment step, yielding scaled radiance fields. If correct, this removes the calibration and pose-estimation bottleneck that normally precedes novel-view synthesis, making sparse-view rendering practical for casually captured photo pairs. The method reports large gains over pose-free baselines, such as 26.81 versus 22.51 PSNR on the Re10K small-overlap split, and claims to be the first to render without predefined intrinsics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gaussian surfel, a flattened 3D Gaussian parameterized by color, center $\mu$, two scale values, a normal vector $n$, and opacity $o$, whose covariance is $\Sigma = R\,\mathrm{Diag}[(s_x)^2,(s_y)^2,0]\,R^T$. Surfels are pixel-aligned and anchored to the pointmap predicted by a pretrained Dust3R head, which gives the optimization a consistent initial geometry. The second mechanism is the Bundle-Adjusting Gaussian Splatting module: it differentiates the rasterizer's 2D Gaussian means and covariances with respect to the intrinsic matrix $K$ and the pose $T\in SE(3)$, so that photometric loss from both views and a depth-warp geometric loss jointly refine Gaussians, $K$, and $T$. This turns the Gaussian renderer itself into a camera-calibration engine.

What would settle it

Take an image pair with known ground-truth intrinsics and pose where the initial pointmap is known to be wrong, for example a low-texture wall or a repetitive pattern, run SmileSplat, and compare the refined K and T against the ground truth; if the final photometric loss is low yet the recovered intrinsics or pose are far from the true values, the claim that the method recovers camera parameters rather than merely fitting the two views fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that camera parameters can be treated as optimizable variables inside a generalizable Gaussian Splatting pipeline rather than as inputs or as a separate preprocessing stage. SmileSplat first predicts Gaussian surfels in the coordinate frame of the first image using a multi-head regression decoder, with positions anchored to a pretrained pointmap head and surface normals supervised by a normal-prior network. It then optimizes the intrinsic matrix by rendering the first view, the relative pose by rendering the second view, and finally jointly adjusts Gaussians, intrinsics, and extrinsics under photometric and geometric (depth-warp consistency) losses. The paper argues this yields accurate scaled radiance fields from unposed, uncalibrated sparse views, and supports the claim with novel-view rendering and depth evaluations on Re10K, ACID, Replica, and ICL-NUIM, where it outperforms pose-free baselines such as NoPoSplat by a large margin.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes the pointmap and surface normals predicted by the pretrained heads are accurate and mutually consistent enough that the photometric refinement converges to the true scene rather than to a local optimum that happens to reproduce the two input views.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two overlapping images become the minimal input for photorealistic novel-view synthesis, with no COLMAP or SfM preprocessing.
  • Intrinsics and extrinsics are recovered to the accuracy needed for rendering, so casual camera settings with unknown focal length and pose are absorbed by the optimization.
  • Cross-dataset generalization improves: the paper's Re10K-trained model renders Replica and ICL-NUIM scenes with higher PSNR than the pose-free baseline, suggesting the representation transfers to new indoor environments.
  • Jointly optimizing geometry and cameras produces scale-consistent depth as a byproduct, enabling depth-map prediction alongside rendering.
  • The method sets a new operating point for pose-free sparse-view Gaussian splatting, exceeding the previous pose-free baseline by more than 4 dB PSNR on the small-overlap split of Re10K.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper evaluates only two-view input; a natural extension the authors do not explore is whether the same bundle-adjusting loop scales to three or more views, where the geometric consistency loss would have more constraints and could correct larger initial pointmap errors.
  • Because the geometric loss compares depth maps across views, the architecture could be adapted to produce scale-consistent dense reconstructions for robotics and augmented reality, not just renderings.
  • The reliance on a pretrained pointmap head suggests a testable boundary: on scenes with repetitive texture or transparent and specular surfaces, the initial geometry may be wrong in a way that photometric refinement cannot escape, as the paper's own stair-guardrail limitation indicates.
  • The optical-center initialization at the image center and focal length at 1.2 times the image size imply that extreme lenses, such as fisheye or strongly cropped views, may fall outside the basin of convergence; a stress test across a focal-length range would map the method's practical calibration envelope.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. SmileSplat proposes a generalizable Gaussian splatting model for novel-view rendering and depth prediction from two unconstrained images when ground-truth camera parameters are not available. The method uses a Siamese ViT encoder with cross-attention, a multi-head Gaussian surfel regression decoder initialized from Dust3R pointmaps, and a pretrained normal prior. Camera intrinsics, relative extrinsics, and Gaussian parameters are then refined by a bundle-adjusting Gaussian splatting module that iterates 100 times per test pair. Experiments on Re10K and ACID report state-of-the-art results, e.g., Re10K small-overlap PSNR 26.81 vs 22.51 for NoPoSplat, and cross-dataset results are reported on Replica and ICL-NUIM.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the paper would be practically valuable because it removes both camera poses and intrinsics from the sparse-view rendering pipeline and offers a checkable, well-documented projection-gradient derivation in the appendix. The paper also includes an ablation table that separates gains on observed views from gains on a held-out view, which is useful diagnostic evidence. However, the state-of-the-art claim is not yet established: the main comparison gives SmileSplat substantially more test-time computation than the baselines and, for novel views, may use the target image during pose-only refinement. The significance is therefore conditional on a fair, matched-budget evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Table 1, Supplementary C.1] The headline Re10K comparison is not a matched evaluation. Algorithm 1 allocates 100 iterations of K/G/T refinement, and Supplementary C.1 states that for novel views the target image is used for pose-only optimization. None of the baseline rows in Table 1 is given an equivalent test-time optimization budget; pixelSplat and MVSplat receive ground-truth K/T, and NoPoSplat is run without a stated per-scene bundle adjustment. Because Table 2 shows that most of the photometric gain occurs on the two observed views while the held-out View 3 improves only from about 18.6 to 19.3 dB, the 4.3 dB gap over NoPoSplat in the small-overlap row of Table 1 may reflect extra optimization on observed images rather than a better generalizable radiance field. Please rerun the comparison with matched per-scene optimization (either give all methods the same number of iterations or report a no-BA variant of SmileSplat) and report novel-view metrics with the target image withheld.
  2. [Section 1, Table 1] The novelty claim that SmileSplat is 'the first to render images without requiring predefined intrinsic parameters' is inconsistent with Table 1, where Splatt3R is evaluated under the K=×, Pose=× setting, meaning it also operates without predefined intrinsics. If the intended distinction is that SmileSplat additionally optimizes camera parameters against the Gaussian radiance field, that should be stated precisely; otherwise the claim should be removed or qualified.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4] The cross-dataset generalization results on Replica and ICL-NUIM should be reported under the same protocol clarifications as Table 1. If the target views in those tables are used for pose-only bundle adjustment before the reported PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS are computed, the comparison against NoPoSplat is again asymmetric. Please state explicitly for every table whether the target image was observed during any part of the refinement and give the runtime or iteration count.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (9)] The definition Lssimi = ssim(I^u,v_i − Ibar^u,v_i) appears to be a typo; SSIM should compare the rendered and observed images directly, not their difference. Please correct the definition and the subscript notation.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text refers to 'Dust3D [38]'; the intended reference is Dust3R. Please fix the name.
  3. [After Equation (21)] The intrinsic matrix K is written with fx in both diagonal entries; the second entry should presumably be fy. Please correct the notation.
  4. [Table 2 caption] The caption 'all three views are novel views, while View 3 is the novel view when the first two views are used for reference Gaussian surfels' is confusing. Please clarify which rows use which views during optimization and which view is held out in each row.
  5. [Supplementary B.1] There is a typo: 'state-pf-the-art' should be 'state-of-the-art'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the core pipeline explicitly optimizes K, T, and Gaussians against photometric/geometric losses, and the SOTA claim is externally benchmarked; remaining issues are benchmark-protocol fairness, not circular derivation.

full rationale

SmileSplat's derivation chain is openly a refinement pipeline rather than a hidden identity. Section 3.1 initializes positions as P = P_hat + delta_P using the external Dust3R pointmap head and supervises normals with the external normal prior [1]; neither is a self-citation or an output of the paper's own method. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 define K and T as explicit minimizers of photometric losses (Eqs. 4 and 6) and then jointly refine G, K, T with Eq. 10; these are stated optimization objectives, so fitted camera parameters are not renamed as free predictions. The benchmark results are computed on external datasets (Re10K, ACID, Replica, ICL-NUIM) against external baselines. The self-citations that exist ([22], [23], [51]) appear only as background citations in the introduction and related work and are not load-bearing for the claimed novelty. Supplementary C.1 and Table 2 do reveal an evaluation-protocol concern: for novel-view steps the method performs pose-only optimization against the observed target image ("we optimize only the camera poses, without incorporating the observed image in the Gaussian optimization process"), and the ablation shows much larger gains on the two source views than on the genuinely held-out View 3, which moves only from 18.63 to 19.27 PSNR. This is a legitimate correctness and fairness limitation for the headline SOTA claim, but it is not a circularity: fitting a 6-DoF pose to the target image does not by construction reproduce the target's appearance, which is still rendered from source-view Gaussians. Supplementary C.3 similarly concedes an initial-geometry-dependent failure case, which is an honest limitation rather than a circular reduction. No step in the derivation is equivalent to its own inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it relies on established representations (Gaussian surfels) and pretrained geometric priors (Dust3R, surface normal networks, CroCo). The principal free parameters are loss weights and initialization heuristics, none of which are justified by sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 (loss weights) = 0.05, 0.05, 0.01
    Hand-chosen weights balancing photometric and geometric losses in Eq. 10; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • lambda_ssim (SSIM weight) = 0.6
    Weight for the structural similarity term in the photometric loss Eq. 9.
  • initial focal length factor = 1.2 times image width/height
    Heuristic initialization for the intrinsic optimization described in Section 3.2.
  • learning rates for intrinsic parameters (lc, lf) = not specified
    Separate learning rates for principal point and focal length, values not reported in Section 3.2.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Pinhole camera model and perspective projection matrix
    Used throughout Section 3.2 and Appendix A.2 to derive gradients.
  • domain assumption 2D Gaussian surfel representation with covariance Sigma = R Diag[s1^2, s2^2, 0] R^T
    Adopted from 2D Gaussian Splatting literature; used in Eq. 2.
  • domain assumption Pretrained Dust3R pointmap head provides sufficiently accurate initial positions in a canonical frame
    Position prediction P = P_hat + delta_P relies on Dust3R's pointmap prior (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Pretrained surface normal network provides reliable normal supervision
    Normal loss Ln in Eq. 3 trains the normal head against this prior.
  • domain assumption CroCo/ViT backbone pretrained on millions of images transfers to sparse-view Gaussian prediction
    Backbone initialized from CroCo, stated in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Photometric consistency between two views is sufficient to recover camera intrinsics and extrinsics
    Intrinsic and extrinsic estimation minimize photometric losses in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The canonical coordinate frame of the predicted pointmap is shared across views and its scale is consistent
    Bundle adjustment treats predicted surfels as being in the first camera's coordinate system and estimates a single relative pose (Eq. 7 and Algorithm 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SmileSplat: Generalizable Gaussian Splats for Unconstrained Sparse Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G7LDW5WW

@misc{pith2026241118072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SmileSplat: Generalizable Gaussian Splats for Unconstrained Sparse Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G7LDW5WW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18072}
}
read the original abstract

Sparse Multi-view Images can be Learned to predict explicit radiance fields via Generalizable Gaussian Splatting approaches, which can achieve wider application prospects in real-life when ground-truth camera parameters are not required as inputs. In this paper, a novel generalizable Gaussian Splatting method, SmileSplat, is proposed to reconstruct pixel-aligned Gaussian surfels for diverse scenarios only requiring unconstrained sparse multi-view images. First, Gaussian surfels are predicted based on the multi-head Gaussian regression decoder, which can are represented with less degree-of-freedom but have better multi-view consistency. Furthermore, the normal vectors of Gaussian surfel are enhanced based on high-quality of normal priors. Second, the Gaussians and camera parameters (both extrinsic and intrinsic) are optimized to obtain high-quality Gaussian radiance fields for novel view synthesis tasks based on the proposed Bundle-Adjusting Gaussian Splatting module. Extensive experiments on novel view rendering and depth map prediction tasks are conducted on public datasets, demonstrating that the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance in various 3D vision tasks. More information can be found on our project page (https://yanyan-li.github.io/project/gs/smilesplat)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example result of SmileSplat. It aims to render novel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of SmileSplat. With sparse but overlapping views as input, the system consists of two main modules, Multi-Head [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of novel view rendering and depth prediction results on Re10k [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons of novel view rendering on Replica [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D Perspective frustum and its different views in 2D space. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparisons of novel view rendering on the ICL-NUIM [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparisons of novel view rendering on the ACID [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The entire optimization process. To clearly visualize the difference maps, we have magnified the error values by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Optimization process (the first 36 iterations) for intrinsic and extrinsic parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization for the optimization process and Gaussian Splatting fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bundle adjusting Gaussian Splatting refinement for View 1 and View 2. For clearly visualizing difference maps, we have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learnable Infinite Taylor Gaussian for Dynamic View Rendering

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A dynamic Gaussian rendering method that wraps a third-order time polynomial around an SC-GS style skeleton and reports higher PSNR, though the 'infinite Taylor' framing is a fitted residual network.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gwangbin Bae and Andrew J. Davison. Rethinking inductive biases for surface normal estimation. In IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) ,

  2. [2]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5470–5479, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [3]

    Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19697–19705, 2023. 2

    2023

  4. [4]

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

    David Charatan, Sizhe Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Vincent Sitzmann. pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12337, 2023. 2, 3, 6

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    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. 6, 7

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    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, 3, 6, 7

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Gaussianpro: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive propagation

    Kai Cheng, Xiaoxiao Long, Kaizhi Yang, Yao Yao, Wei Yin, Yuexin Ma, Wenping Wang, and Xuejin Chen. Gaussianpro: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive propagation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14650, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 2, 4

    arXiv 2010

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    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. 6, 7

    2023

  2. [10]

    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

    2024

  3. [11]

    Instantsplat: Un- bounded sparse-view pose-free gaussian splatting in 40 sec- onds

    Zhiwen Fan, Wenyan Cong, Kairun Wen, Kevin Wang, Jian Zhang, Xinghao Ding, Danfei Xu, Boris Ivanovic, Marco Pavone, Georgios Pavlakos, et al. Instantsplat: Un- bounded sparse-view pose-free gaussian splatting in 40 sec- onds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20309, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5501–5510, 2022. 2

    2022

  5. [13]

    Colmap-free 3d gaussian splat- ting

    Yang Fu, Sifei Liu, Amey Kulkarni, Jan Kautz, Alexei A Efros, and Xiaolong Wang. Colmap-free 3d gaussian splat- ting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07504, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A benchmark for rgb-d visual odometry, 3d reconstruction and slam

    Ankur Handa, Thomas Whelan, John McDonald, and An- drew J Davison. A benchmark for rgb-d visual odometry, 3d reconstruction and slam. In 2014 IEEE international confer- 16 ence on Robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 1524–1531. IEEE, 2014. 6, 11, 12

    2014

  7. [15]

    Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision . Cambridge university press,

  8. [16]

    Accurate and efficient stereo process- ing by semi-global matching and mutual information

    Heiko Hirschmuller. Accurate and efficient stereo process- ing by semi-global matching and mutual information. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05) , pages 807–814. IEEE, 2005. 1

    2005

  9. [17]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024. 3

    2024

  10. [18]

    On the error analysis of 3d gaussian splatting and an optimal projection strategy

    Letian Huang, Jiayang Bai, Jie Guo, Yuanqi Li, and Yanwen Guo. On the error analysis of 3d gaussian splatting and an optimal projection strategy. CoRR, 2024. 10

    2024

  11. [19]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the fourth Eurographics symposium on Geometry processing, 2006. 1

    2006

  12. [20]

    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,

  13. [21]

    Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and Jerome Revaud. Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024. 2, 6, 7

    2024

  14. [22]

    Rgb-d slam with structural regularities

    Yanyan Li, Raza Yunus, Nikolas Brasch, Nassir Navab, and Federico Tombari. Rgb-d slam with structural regularities. In 2021 IEEE international conference on Robotics and au- tomation (ICRA), pages 11581–11587. IEEE, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  15. [23]

    Geogaussian: Geometry-aware gaussian splatting for scene rendering

    Yanyan Li, Chenyu Lyu, Yan Di, Guangyao Zhai, Gim Hee Lee, and Federico Tombari. Geogaussian: Geometry-aware gaussian splatting for scene rendering. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 441–457. Springer, 2025. 2, 10

    2025

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Gaussian splatting slam

    Hidenobu Matsuki, Riku Murai, Paul HJ Kelly, and An- drew J Davison. Gaussian splatting slam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06741, 2023. 1, 3, 5

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    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, 2

    2021

  19. [27]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  20. [28]

    Orb-slam: a versatile and accurate monocular slam system

    Raul Mur-Artal, Jose Maria Martinez Montiel, and Juan D Tardos. Orb-slam: a versatile and accurate monocular slam system. IEEE transactions on robotics , 31(5):1147–1163,

  21. [29]

    Texture fields: Learning tex- ture representations in function space

    Michael Oechsle, Lars Mescheder, Michael Niemeyer, Thilo Strauss, and Andreas Geiger. Texture fields: Learning tex- ture representations in function space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 4531–4540, 2019. 1

    2019

  22. [30]

    Global structure-from-motion revisited

    Linfei Pan, D ´aniel Bar´ath, Marc Pollefeys, and Johannes L Sch¨onberger. Global structure-from-motion revisited. 1

  23. [31]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 4

    2016

  24. [32]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4104–4113, 2016. 1

    2016

  25. [33]

    Pixelwise view selection for un- structured multi-view stereo

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Marc Pollefeys, and Jan-Michael Frahm. Pixelwise view selection for un- structured multi-view stereo. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2016. 4, 5

    2016

  26. [34]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. 6

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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. 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces

    Julian Straub, Thomas Whelan, Lingni Ma, Yufan Chen, Erik Wijmans, Simon Green, Jakob J Engel, Raul Mur-Artal, Carl Ren, Shobhit Verma, et al. The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797,

    1906 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction

    Cheng Sun, Min Sun, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5459– 5469, 2022. 2

    2022

  30. [38]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14132, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08528, 2023. 3 17

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sparsegs: Real- time 360 {\deg} sparse view synthesis using gaussian splat- ting

    Haolin Xiong, Sairisheek Muttukuru, Rishi Upadhyay, Pradyumna Chari, and Achuta Kadambi. Sparsegs: Real- time 360 {\deg} sparse view synthesis using gaussian splat- ting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00206, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11700,

    Chi Yan, Delin Qu, Dong Wang, Dan Xu, Zhigang Wang, Bin Zhao, and Xuelong Li. Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11700,

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Real-time photorealistic dynamic scene representa- tion and rendering with 4d gaussian splatting

    Zeyu Yang, Hongye Yang, Zijie Pan, Xiatian Zhu, and Li Zhang. Real-time photorealistic dynamic scene representa- tion and rendering with 4d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10642, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    Botao Ye, Sifei Liu, Haofei Xu, Xueting Li, Marc Pollefeys, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Songyou Peng. No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24207, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    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. 10

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    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 Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4578–4587, 2021. 2, 6, 7

    2021

  40. [48]

    Orb- tedm: An rgb-d slam approach fusing orb triangulation esti- mates and depth measurements

    Jing Yuan, Shuhao Zhu, Kaitao Tang, and Qinxuan Sun. Orb- tedm: An rgb-d slam approach fusing orb triangulation esti- mates and depth measurements. IEEE Transactions on In- strumentation and Measurement, 71:1–15, 2022. 1

    2022

  41. [49]

    A flexible new technique for camera cali- bration

    Zhengyou Zhang. A flexible new technique for camera cali- bration. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 22(11):1330–1334, 2000. 1

    2000

  42. [50]

    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. 6, 7, 8

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Robust gaussian splat- ting slam by leveraging loop closure

    Zunjie Zhu, Youxu Fang, Xin Li, Chengang Yan, Feng Xu, Chau Yuen, and Yanyan Li. Robust gaussian splat- ting slam by leveraging loop closure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20111, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ewa splatting

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross. Ewa splatting. IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, 8(3):223–238, 2002. 10 18

    2002

Pith tools

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