Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

ActiveGS: Active Scene Reconstruction Using Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ActiveGS uses per-primitive confidence to steer an RGB-D camera toward under-reconstructed regions, beating active reconstruction baselines.

desk verdict A useful, well-engineered paper on active GS reconstruction; the confidence heuristic is plausible and the experiments support the main claim, but the confidence-specific ROI benefit is not cleanly isolated and the low-confidence threshold is unspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17769 v2 pith:TFUDPWCH submitted 2024-12-23 cs.RO cs.CV

Liren Jin , Xingguang Zhong , Yue Pan , Jens Behley , Cyrill Stachniss , Marija Popović This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords activescenereconstructionGaussiansplattingconfidencemodellingnext-best-viewplanninghybridmaprepresentationRGB-Dmappingexplorationandexploitationunder-reconstructedsurfaceinspection
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

ActiveGS is a framework for active scene reconstruction: a mobile robot with an RGB-D camera decides where to look next in an unknown scene, under a fixed mission time, so that the resulting map is as accurate as possible. The paper's central claim is that a hybrid map—2D Gaussian splatting for high-fidelity rendering plus a coarse voxel map for occupancy and path planning—lets the robot both explore unknown space and inspect under-reconstructed surfaces. The key idea is a per-Gaussian confidence score computed from the spatial distribution of viewpoints that have observed each surface patch; rendering this confidence into a map gives a fast way to score candidate views. The authors report that ActiveGS outperforms frontier-based exploration, a Fisher-information GS baseline, and a NeRF-based active reconstruction baseline in both rendering PSNR and mesh completeness across the tested indoor scenes, and they demonstrate the system on a real UAV. If this holds, autonomous robots could build denser, higher-fidelity maps with the same exploration budget, without needing ground truth during planning.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the per-primitive confidence score $k_i = \gamma_i \exp(\beta_i)$, where $\gamma_i = \sum_j (1 - d_{ij}/d_{\mathrm{far}})\, n_i \cdot v_{ij}$ accumulates distance-weighted alignment between the primitive's normal and the observed view directions, and $\beta_i = 1 - \|\mu_i\|$ with $\mu_i$ the mean of the normalized view directions measures how widely the primitive has been seen. Because each primitive carries $k_i$, the differentiable rasterizer renders a confidence map at any candidate viewpoint in one forward pass, making viewpoint evaluation cheap and ROI sampling possible. The hybrid voxel map contributes the exploration utility $U_V$ (visible unexplored voxels) and the frontier-based ROI set, and the final view utility is $U_{\mathrm{view}} = \phi U_V + U_G$ with $U_G = -\mathrm{mean}(K_i)$.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to run a full ActiveGS mission on a static scene, then compare each Gaussian primitive's confidence value with its actual reconstruction error (for example, the residual between the primitive's rendered colour and depth and ground truth at its centre); if low-confidence primitives do not systematically coincide with high-error primitives, the exploitation term loses its justification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper discovers and validates a way to make Gaussian-splatting maps actively steer their own refinement. It defines a confidence value for every Gaussian primitive from the directions and distances of the viewpoints that saw it—higher when the primitive has been seen up close, along its normal, and from widely spread angles—and treats rendered confidence as the signal for which parts of the scene are under-reconstructed. The view planner weights exploration (unexplored voxels visible from a candidate pose) against exploitation (negative mean confidence) and generates targeted candidate viewpoints around frontier voxels and voxels containing low-confidence primitives. The paper claims this yields the best rendering and mesh quality across all test scenes compared with frontier-based exploration, FisherRF, and NARUTO, with ablations showing that ROI-based sampling and the viewpoint-distribution confidence formulation each contribute.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a primitive's confidence score—computed only from how many viewpoints saw it, how far away they were, and how aligned they were with its normal—actually marks the regions where the Gaussian map is poorly reconstructed, and the paper never checks this against real reconstruction error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the reported settings, a robot using ActiveGS produces higher PSNR and mesh completeness than frontier-only exploration, FisherRF, and NARUTO for the same mission time.
  • Because confidence maps are rendered in a feed-forward pass, candidate-view evaluation avoids the expensive per-candidate gradient computations that slow Fisher information-based planning.
  • The hybrid representation solves the free-space gap of Gaussian maps: the voxel layer distinguishes unknown from free space, enabling collision-free paths and frontier-based exploration.
  • Targeted sampling around low-confidence primitives, rather than only local random sampling, raises reconstruction quality and reduces variance across trials.
  • Viewpoint-dispersion-aware confidence beats a naive count-based confidence, indicating that angular spread, not just number of views, is the informative signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not verify that a low-confidence primitive actually corresponds to a high per-primitive reconstruction error; testing that correlation directly would tell practitioners whether the exploitation term is pointing at the right surfaces.
  • Since the confidence proxy uses only viewpoint geometry and ignores colour or depth residual, fusing a photometric error term into $k_i$ could make the planner robust to textureless or specular surfaces, where view coverage alone is misleading.
  • The framework assumes perfect localization; injecting pose uncertainty into the viewpoint distribution would make confidence more honest in real deployments, which the paper itself names as future work.
  • The low-confidence threshold used to select ROI voxels is not specified; making it explicit and measuring sensitivity would let users trade exploration against inspection in a principled way.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. ActiveGS proposes an active scene reconstruction framework for a mobile robot with an RGB-D camera, based on a hybrid map that combines 2D Gaussian surfels for high-fidelity dense reconstruction with a coarse voxel map for exploration and path planning. The key novelty is a per-primitive confidence score k_i = gamma_i exp(beta_i), derived from the spatial distribution of observing viewpoints (Eqs. 6-8), which is used in two ways: to define an exploitation utility term in the candidate-viewpoint utility function (Eq. 9) and to select ROI voxels around 'low-confidence' Gaussian primitives for targeted viewpoint sampling (Sec. III-E). The framework iterates between incremental GS training and view planning, and is evaluated in Habitat/Replica on 8 scenes with 5 trials each, against frontier-based exploration (FBE), FisherRF, NARUTO, and two ablations, plus a real-world UAV experiment. The paper claims superior rendering (PSNR) and mesh (completeness) quality relative to these baselines.

Significance. If the claims hold, ActiveGS is a useful and timely contribution: it shows that a Gaussian-splatting representation can support online active reconstruction with fast map updates and explicit quality-oriented planning. The paper has clear strengths: a reproducible open-source implementation with a reproducibility certificate, a comparatively extensive simulation evaluation across 8 Replica scenes with multiple trials, a real-world UAV demonstration, and a simple confidence rendering mechanism that avoids expensive per-candidate gradient computations. The central comparative claim is supported by the reported experimental design, although the key confidence proxy is not directly validated against reconstruction error and one planning parameter is underspecified. These issues are addressable and do not appear to invalidate the main framework, but they are load-bearing for claim (ii) about confidence-guided inspection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-C, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The confidence score k_i is a geometric heuristic based only on the set of viewpoints that observe primitive i: it captures distance, normal alignment, and direction dispersion, but contains no photometric error, depth residual, or training signal. The paper never validates k_i against per-primitive reconstruction error, despite the exploitation term in Eq. (9) and the low-confidence ROI selection in Sec. III-E both assuming that low-k_i primitives are exactly the under-reconstructed ones. I recommend reporting a quantitative relation between k_i (or rendered confidence K) and per-primitive error, for example depth residual, photometric error, or distance to a TSDF ground-truth surface, and/or adding an ablation in which the planner is driven by actual per-primitive error instead of k_i. Without such validation, the central mechanism for 'targeted inspection around under-reconstructed surfaces' rests on an untested assumption.
  2. [Sec. III-E and Sec. IV-A] The criterion for a 'low-confidence Gaussian primitive' is never specified. Sec. III-E states that voxels containing low-confidence Gaussian primitives are added to the ROI set, but neither Sec. IV-A nor any later section defines the threshold (e.g., an absolute k_i value, a percentile, or a fraction of primitives). This makes the ROI sampling step non-reproducible and leaves open the possibility that the reported gains depend sensitively on an unstated threshold. Please define the threshold explicitly and provide an ablation over threshold values.
  3. [Sec. IV-B, ablation study] The ablation 'Ours (w/o ROI)' removes all ROI-based candidate generation, including both frontier-based and confidence-based ROI sampling. Consequently, it cannot isolate the specific benefit of confidence-based targeted inspection, which is the core of claim (ii). A more informative ablation would include a frontier-only ROI variant or a confidence-only ROI variant, so that the contribution of the confidence signal can be separated from the general benefit of adding non-local candidate viewpoints. The comparison with Ours† changes the confidence formula but does not resolve this confound, because both Ours and Ours† use the same combined ROI selection.
  4. [Sec. IV-B, Fig. 4] The headline claim that the approach 'achieves the best performance in both rendering and mesh quality across all test scenes' is supported only by plotted curves in Fig. 4; no numerical table of means and standard deviations is provided, and no statistical significance testing is reported. With five trials per scene, a table reporting mean plus standard deviation for each method and each of the 8 scenes, together with an indication of whether the differences with respect to FBE and FisherRF are significant, would substantially strengthen the comparative claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-A] The exploration weight phi=1000, travel weight delta=0.5, NROI=30, and Ntotal=100 are hand-set without any sensitivity analysis. Since phi scales the exploration term in Eq. (9) relative to a confidence-based term of unknown scale, a brief sensitivity study over phi would increase confidence that the results are not brittle.
  2. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (4)] The color-consistency condition avg(|I(u)-I*(u)|) > 0.5 uses a threshold of 0.5 on RGB values that appear to be in [0,1]; please clarify the color range or the intended interpretation, since this threshold seems high for typical photometric differences.
  3. [Sec. IV-C] The real-world experiment is described qualitatively and no quantitative reconstruction metrics are reported. Adding even a small set of numbers, such as mission time, PSNR, or completeness, would make the real-world validation more convincing.
  4. [Throughout] There are several minor typos and wording issues, for example 'combing explicit' in Sec. II-A should be 'combining explicit', and 'the applicability our framework' in Sec. IV-C should be 'the applicability of our framework'. These do not affect the technical content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the confidence heuristic is evaluated against external reconstruction metrics, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The confidence score k_i = gamma_i exp(beta_i) in Eqs. (6)-(8) is a proposed heuristic that maps viewpoint history to a quality proxy; it is not fitted to the target metrics, and the paper's central claims are evaluated against external ground-truth PSNR and mesh completeness on the Replica benchmark, not against k_i itself. The planner's use of low-confidence primitives for ROI sampling and viewpoint utility is an internal control loop, not a prediction that reduces by construction to its input: improvement is measured by independent rendering and mesh metrics, and the ablations Ours† and Ours (w/o ROI) compare alternative confidence formulations and sampling strategies. Self-citations such as [13], [14], and [24] appear only in related-work positioning and are not load-bearing for the method. The unvalidated link between k_i and true reconstruction error, together with the unspecified low-confidence threshold, is a correctness and reproducibility concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central planner relies on several hand-set constants (most notably phi=1000) and on an unproven heuristic that viewpoint distribution predicts reconstruction quality. The confidence score is a newly introduced model attribute; it is listed as an invented entity because it lacks a direct falsifiable test outside the paper.

free parameters (7)
  • Exploration weight phi = 1000
    Balances exploration utility against confidence exploitation in Eq. (9); hand-set with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Travel cost weight delta = 0.5
    Weights path length against utility in Eq. (10); hand-set, no sensitivity study.
  • Densification thresholds = opacity 0.5, color error 0.5, depth ratio lambda=0.05
    Constants in Eq. (4) that decide where new Gaussian primitives are spawned; directly controls map density and quality.
  • Loss weights = wc=1.0, wd=0.8, wn=0.1
    Weights for photometric, depth, and normal losses in Eq. (5); chosen without ablation.
  • Training schedule = 10 iterations, 3 recent + 5 random frames
    Defines how many optimization steps and which frames update the GS map each mapping step; matters for incremental quality and runtime.
  • Voxel size = 20 cm
    Resolution of the coarse voxel map; sets the lattice for candidate viewpoints and the granularity of exploration utility.
  • Visibility threshold = 0.3
    Minimum rendering contribution for a primitive to count as visible during the visibility check and pruning step.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper A Gaussian primitive is effectively optimised if observed from different viewpoints.
    This is the motivation for the confidence formula in Sec. III-C; it is asserted rather than derived from the GS optimization objective.
  • standard math OctoMap probabilistic occupancy update
    Voxel map occupancy in Sec. III-B follows [9]; accepted background for robot mapping.
  • domain assumption Gaussian surfel representation with differentiable rasterisation
    The GS map in Sec. III-A assumes [4] is a valid high-fidelity map and that rendered depth/color can be used for mask and confidence evaluation.
  • domain assumption Exploration and exploitation utilities can be combined linearly with fixed weight
    Eq. (9) assumes a weighted sum of unexplored-voxel ratio and negative mean confidence is a good utility; no theoretical grounding.
  • domain assumption Perfect localisation
    Stated as a limitation in Sec. V; the real-world experiment uses an OptiTrack motion capture system to supply poses, and all planning assumes known robot pose.
  • domain assumption Evaluation metrics measure reconstruction quality
    PSNR on 1000 test views and 2 cm mesh completeness ratio are used as ground truth for quality; these are standard but not exhaustive.
invented entities (1)
  • Gaussian primitive confidence score k_i = gamma_i exp(beta_i)
    purpose: Quantifies how well each Gaussian primitive has been observed from the viewpoint history and guides the exploitation utility and ROI sampling (Eqs. 6-9).
    The paper validates the score indirectly through final PSNR/completeness gains and ablations, but does not measure the correlation between k_i and per-primitive reconstruction error, so it lacks an independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ActiveGS: Active Scene Reconstruction Using Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TFUDPWCH

@misc{pith2026241217769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ActiveGS: Active Scene Reconstruction Using Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TFUDPWCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17769}
}
read the original abstract

Robotics applications often rely on scene reconstructions to enable downstream tasks. In this work, we tackle the challenge of actively building an accurate map of an unknown scene using an RGB-D camera on a mobile platform. We propose a hybrid map representation that combines a Gaussian splatting map with a coarse voxel map, leveraging the strengths of both representations: the high-fidelity scene reconstruction capabilities of Gaussian splatting and the spatial modelling strengths of the voxel map. At the core of our framework is an effective confidence modelling technique for the Gaussian splatting map to identify under-reconstructed areas, while utilising spatial information from the voxel map to target unexplored areas and assist in collision-free path planning. By actively collecting scene information in under-reconstructed and unexplored areas for map updates, our approach achieves superior Gaussian splatting reconstruction results compared to state-of-the-art approaches. Additionally, we demonstrate the real-world applicability of our framework using an unmanned aerial vehicle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our approach actively reconstructs an unknown scene. We illustrate the reconstruction progress over mission time, displaying planned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of our framework. Our hybrid map representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We show a 2D case of our ROI-based candidate viewpoint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We report the reconstruction performance evaluated in rendering and mesh quality over online mission time. Our ActiveGS outperforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of reconstruction results using different approaches. We show RGB rendering and surface meshes for two scenes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Our real-world experiments using a UAV equipped with an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.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. Understanding Fire Through Thermal Radiation Fields for Mobile Robots

    cs.RO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fusing thermal and depth images lets a legged robot build a real-time radiation-field cost map and plan paths that avoid fire heat while still reaching its goal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Efficient surfel-based slam using 3d laser range data in urban environments,

    J. Behley and C. Stachniss, “Efficient surfel-based slam using 3d laser range data in urban environments,” in Proc. of Robotics: Science and Systems, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Receding horizon “next-best-view

    A. Bircher, M. Kamel, K. Alexis, H. Oleynikova, and R. Siegwart, “Receding horizon “next-best-view” planner for 3d exploration,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics & Automation , 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Active vision in robotic systems: A survey of recent developments,

    S. Chen, Y . Li, and N. M. Kwok, “Active vision in robotic systems: A survey of recent developments,” Intl. Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1343–1377, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels,

    P. Dai, J. Xu, W. Xie, X. Liu, H. Wang, and W. Xu, “High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Naruto: Neural active reconstruction from uncertain target observations,

    Z. Feng, H. Zhan, Z. Chen, Q. Yan, X. Xu, C. Cai, B. Li, Q. Zhu, and Y . Xu, “Naruto: Neural active reconstruction from uncertain target observations,” in Proc. of the IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Meeting-merging-mission: A multi-robot coordi- nate framework for large-scale communication-limited exploration,

    Y . Gao, Y . Wang, X. Zhong, T. Yang, M. Wang, Z. Xu, Y . Wang, Y . Lin, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Meeting-merging-mission: A multi-robot coordi- nate framework for large-scale communication-limited exploration,” in Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

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

    A. Gu ´edon and V . Lepetit, “Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering,” in Proc. of the IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,

    P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE Trans. on Systems Science and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, 1968

    work page 1968

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,

    A. Hornung, K. M. Wurm, M. Bennewitz, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 34, pp. 189–206, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields,

    B. Huang, Z. Yu, A. Chen, A. Geiger, and S. Gao, “2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    An information gain formulation for active volumetric 3d reconstruction,

    S. Isler, R. Sabzevari, J. Delmerico, and D. Scaramuzza, “An information gain formulation for active volumetric 3d reconstruction,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics & Automation , 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Fisherrf: Active view selection and mapping with radiance fields using fisher information,

    W. Jiang, B. Lei, and K. Daniilidis, “Fisherrf: Active view selection and mapping with radiance fields using fisher information,” in Proc. of the Europ. Conf. on Computer Vision , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Neu-nbv: Next best view planning using uncertainty estimation in image-based neural rendering,

    L. Jin, X. Chen, J. R ¨uckin, and M. Popovi ´c, “Neu-nbv: Next best view planning using uncertainty estimation in image-based neural rendering,” in Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Stair: Semantic- targeted active implicit reconstruction,

    L. Jin, H. Kuang, Y . Pan, C. Stachniss, and M. Popovi´c, “Stair: Semantic- targeted active implicit reconstruction,” in Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Gs-planner: A gaussian-splatting- based planning framework for active high-fidelity reconstruction,

    R. Jin, Y . Gao, H. Lu, and F. Gao, “Gs-planner: A gaussian-splatting- based planning framework for active high-fidelity reconstruction,” in Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,” ACM Trans. on Graph- ics, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Informed sampling exploration path planner for 3d reconstruction of large scenes,

    Y . Kompis, L. Bartolomei, R. Mascaro, L. Teixeira, and M. Chli, “Informed sampling exploration path planner for 3d reconstruction of large scenes,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7893–7900, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Active neural mapping at scale,

    Z. Kuang, Z. Yan, H. Zhao, G. Zhou, and H. Zha, “Active neural mapping at scale,” in Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Activesplat: High-fidelity scene reconstruction through active gaussian splatting,

    Y . Li, Z. Kuang, T. Li, G. Zhou, S. Zhang, and Z. Yan, “Activesplat: High-fidelity scene reconstruction through active gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21955 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm,

    W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, “Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm,” in Seminal Graphics: Pioneering Efforts that Shaped the Field , 1998, pp. 347–353

    1998

  13. [21]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” in Proc. of the Europ. Conf. on Computer Vision , 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Instant neural graph- ics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graph- ics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Trans. on Graphics, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    KinectFusion: Real-Time Dense Surface Mapping and Tracking,

    R. A. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim, A. J. Davison, P. Kohli, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon, “KinectFusion: Real-Time Dense Surface Mapping and Tracking,” in Proc. of the Intl. Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality , 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Effective Exploration for MA Vs Based on the Expected Information Gain,

    E. Palazzolo and C. Stachniss, “Effective Exploration for MA Vs Based on the Expected Information Gain,” Drones, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Activenerf: Learning where to see with uncertainty estimation,

    X. Pan, Z. Lai, S. Song, and G. Huang, “Activenerf: Learning where to see with uncertainty estimation,” in Proc. of the Europ. Conf. on Computer Vision, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, and A. Y . Ng, “Ros: an open-source robot operating system,” in ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software , 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Neurar: Neural uncertainty for autonomous 3d reconstruction with implicit neural representations,

    Y . Ran, J. Zeng, S. He, J. Chen, L. Li, Y . Chen, G. Lee, and Q. Ye, “Neurar: Neural uncertainty for autonomous 3d reconstruction with implicit neural representations,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1125–1132, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Total variation based image restoration with free local constraints,

    L. Rudin and S. Osher, “Total variation based image restoration with free local constraints,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Image Processing , 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research,

    M. Savva, A. Kadian, O. Maksymets, Y . Zhao, E. Wijmans, B. Jain, J. Straub, J. Liu, V . Koltun, J. Malik et al. , “Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research,” in Proc. of the IEEE/CVF Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    An efficient sampling-based method for online informative path planning in unknown environments,

    L. Schmid, M. Pantic, R. Khanna, L. Ott, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “An efficient sampling-based method for online informative path planning in unknown environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1500–1507, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Online inspection path planning for autonomous 3d modeling using a micro-aerial vehicle,

    S. Song and S. Jo, “Online inspection path planning for autonomous 3d modeling using a micro-aerial vehicle,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics & Automation , 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Surface-based exploration for autonomous 3d modeling,

    ——, “Surface-based exploration for autonomous 3d modeling,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics & Automation , 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    The Replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces,

    J. Straub, T. Whelan, L. Ma, Y . Chen, E. Wijmans, S. Green, J. J. Engel, R. Mur-Artal, C. Ren, S. Verma, A. Clarkson, M. Yan, B. Budge, Y . Yan, X. Pan, J. Yon, Y . Zou, K. Leon, N. Carter, J. Briales, T. Gillingham, E. Mueggler, L. Pesqueira, M. Savva, D. Batra, H. M. Strasd...

    1906 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Elasticfusion: Dense slam without a pose graph

    T. Whelan, S. Leutenegger, R. F. Salas-Moreno, B. Glocker, and A. J. Davison, “Elasticfusion: Dense slam without a pose graph.” in Proc. of Robotics: Science and Systems , 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Hgs-planner: Hierarchical planning framework for ac- tive scene reconstruction using 3d gaussian splatting,

    Z. Xu, R. Jin, K. Wu, Y . Zhao, Z. Zhang, J. Zhao, F. Gao, Z. Gan, and W. Ding, “Hgs-planner: Hierarchical planning framework for ac- tive scene reconstruction using 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17624, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A frontier-based approach for autonomous exploration,

    B. Yamauchi, “A frontier-based approach for autonomous exploration,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Symp. on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation , 1997

    1997

  29. [37]

    Active implicit object reconstruction using uncertainty-guided next-best-view optimization,

    D. Yan, J. Liu, F. Quan, H. Chen, and M. Fu, “Active implicit object reconstruction using uncertainty-guided next-best-view optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 6395–6402, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Active neural mapping,

    Z. Yan, H. Yang, and H. Zha, “Active neural mapping,” in Proc. of the IEEE/CVF Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision , 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Pc-nbv: A point cloud based deep network for efficient next best view planning,

    R. Zeng, W. Zhao, and Y .-J. Liu, “Pc-nbv: A point cloud based deep network for efficient next best view planning,” in Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Fuel: Fast uav exploration using incremental frontier structure and hierarchical planning,

    B. Zhou, Y . Zhang, X. Chen, and S. Shen, “Fuel: Fast uav exploration using incremental frontier structure and hierarchical planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 779–786, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Ewa volume splatting,

    M. Zwicker, H. Pfister, J. Van Baar, and M. Gross, “Ewa volume splatting,” in Proc. of Visualization, 2001. JIN et al.: ACTIVEGS 9 CERTIFICATE OF REPRODUCIBILITY The authors of this publication declare that:

    2001

  34. [42]

    The software related to this publication is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, support open research, and simplify the reproducability of the results but it comes without any warranty and without even the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a partic...

  35. [43]

    This was done on Ubuntu20.04

    Liren Jin primarily developed the implementation related to this paper. This was done on Ubuntu20.04

  36. [44]

    Yue Pan verified that the code can be executed on a machine that follows the software specification given in the Git repository available at: https://github.com/dmar-bonn/active-gs

  37. [45]

    Yue Pan verified that the experimental results presented in this publication can be reproduced using the implementation used at submission, which is labeled with a tag in the Git repository and can be retrieved using the command: git checkout ral2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.