From Flight to Insight: Semantic 3D Reconstruction for Aerial Inspection via Gaussian Splatting and Language-Guided Segmentation

Homayoun Najjaran; Mahmoud Chick Zaouali; Todd Charter

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 24 references

From Flight to Insight: Semantic 3D Reconstruction for Aerial Inspection via Gaussian Splatting and Language-Guided Segmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that language prompts can drive object segmentation in large outdoor 3D reconstructions built from drone imagery, using a hybrid heatmap-plus-refinement pipeline.

desk verdict Honest proof-of-concept for language-guided UAV 3D inspection; the pipeline works qualitatively, but the end-to-end claim rests on one unvalidated argmax prompt. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17402 v1 pith:G2OWLRU4 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.GR cs.CVeess.IV

Mahmoud Chick Zaouali , Todd Charter , Homayoun Najjaran This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GRcs.CVeess.IV

keywords 3DGaussianSplattinglanguage-guidedsegmentationaerialinspectionsemanticreconstructionCLIPSAMfeaturefieldsUAV

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

The paper tries to establish that a photorealistic 3D reconstruction of an outdoor scene, built from drone images, can be queried in plain language—asking for 'dome' or 'stairs with metal railing'—and return a usable segmentation of the named object. It adapts a Gaussian-splatting feature field so that each 3D primitive carries CLIP-LSeg visual-language features, then renders a text-similarity heatmap for a prompt, thresholds it to a coarse mask, and sends the hottest point to SAM or SAM2 for a refined mask on that rendered view. The authors argue that even though these foundation models were trained mainly on everyday images, the approach works on large, repetitive outdoor infrastructure well enough to be a proof of concept for UAV-based inspection. If correct, this would let an inspector query a reconstruction conversationally and find structures of interest without training a model for each object.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Feature-3DGS model—a 3D Gaussian Splatting variant that learns a per-primitive feature field alongside color—trained with CLIP-LSeg features. The central mechanism is the two-stage prompting chain: compute the cosine similarity between a text prompt's CLIP embedding and the rendered feature image to form a heatmap; threshold the heatmap for a coarse segmentation; take the argmax point of the heatmap as a point prompt for SAM or SAM2; and read out the refined 2D mask for that novel view. All downstream quality depends on that single argmax point landing on the queried object.

What would settle it

Render the same language prompt from a sweep of novel viewpoints around the observatory, record the argmax pixel position in each rendered heatmap, and check whether it consistently falls inside a ground-truth mask of the queried object; if the peak wanders off the object across views, the coarse localization stage fails and the SAM refinement cannot recover.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-stage pipeline—CLIP-LSeg features distilled into 3D Gaussians, rendered as cosine-similarity heatmaps for a text prompt, thresholded into a rough localization, then refined by a point-prompted 2D segmenter—produces usable language-guided segmentation in large outdoor scenes. The paper demonstrates this on two custom UAV datasets, a small building and a dome-roofed observatory, with qualitative evidence: the prompt 'dome' highlights the dome and yields a refined SAM mask, and 'stairs with metal railing' highlights the metal staircase. It also reports a comparison of feature-field backbones, concluding that CLIP-LSeg gives smooth semantic grouping, SAM gives granular object-level detail, and SAM2 gives noisier, less interpretable fields in this setting. These results, the authors state, establish the feasibility of using language queries to drive object segmentation in outdoor 3D scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The refinement step depends on the single highest-scoring point of the rendered text-similarity heatmap actually landing on the object named by the prompt, and on that staying true when the view is one the model has not seen before.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Users can query an outdoor 3D reconstruction with open-vocabulary text and obtain a segmented object of interest without fine-tuning a model for that object.
The backbone comparison gives concrete guidance: CLIP-LSeg features suit broad semantic grouping, SAM features suit local detail, and SAM2 features need adaptation before use in complex outdoor scenes.
Threshold-based heatmap segmentation is sensitive to score distribution and prompt phrasing, so practical deployments will need centroid- or region-aware prompt strategies rather than a single argmax point.
The reconstruction quality limits the approach: thin and subtle elements such as cracks, wiring, or small windows are not reliably captured, so fine-grained defect inspection remains out of reach for this pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

A quantitative view-consistency test would be the natural next check: render the same prompt from many novel viewpoints and measure how often the argmax point, and the final SAM mask, stays on the target object; the paper's qualitative evidence does not settle this.
The two-stage pattern—feature field heatmap plus point-prompted 2D segmenter—should transfer to other open-vocabulary grounding backbones and to video from a drone, where a memory-equipped segmenter might help maintain masks across frames.
Moving the feature field from per-Gaussian 2D-aligned features to true volumetric 3D features, as the authors list for future work, could be what unlocks reliable small-object and defect localization rather than only large structures.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this if you want a quick look at how off-the-shelf feature fields behave on drone-captured outdoor scenes. The useful part is not a new component; it's the combination and the honest report on what breaks outside the lab.

What's new: they take Feature-3DGS, train it with CLIP-LSeg features, and then use the rendered cosine-similarity heatmap to point-prompt SAM/SAM2 for refined masks. No one has reported exactly this sequence on UAV outdoor data. They also compare CLIP-LSeg, SAM, and SAM2 feature fields qualitatively, which is a useful data point: CLIP-LSeg gives smooth semantic regions, SAM gives granular object parts, SAM2 looks noisy. That comparison is probably the most informative contribution.

What the paper does well: it's clearly written, the pipeline is described in enough detail to reproduce (except data/code), and the authors are upfront about many limitations—threshold sensitivity, argmax simplicity, aerial domain gap, and the fact that true volumetric 3D feature fields remain future work. The qualitative figures reportedly show the dome heatmap landing on the dome and SAM producing a reasonable mask. As a proof of concept, that's plausible.

Where it's soft: the end-to-end claim in Section IV-D is supported by exactly one qualitative example. The stress-test note is right: the whole second stage depends on the heatmap argmax landing on the queried object, and that is never measured. Rendered feature fields are alpha-composited; with PSNR around 22 and SSIM around 0.64, a single peak can easily be pulled to a neighboring structure. The authors themselves admit argmax prompting is 'simplistic' in the Discussion, which makes the 'demonstrates feasibility' sentence in IV-D overreach. There is no quantitative segmentation metric (IoU, hit rate, view-consistency), no baseline comparison (e.g., LangSplat or Grounded-SAM on the same data), and no error bars on Table I. The title says '3D segmentation' but the method segments 2D renderings; the paper acknowledges this only in the future-work section. These are real gaps, but they are fixable gaps, not structural flaws.

Who is this for: someone scoping language-embedded 3DGS for UAV inspection will get a quick, honest orientation. It's not a benchmark and it doesn't claim to be. It should not be cited as evidence that the pipeline works reliably; it is evidence that the combination is worth pursuing.

Recommendation: I would send it to peer review with an explicit request for revision—add a hit-rate/quantitative evaluation of the argmax prompt across novel views, include at least one baseline, and temper the '3D segmentation' claim. As written, it's a conditional accept at best; the underlying question is legitimate and the presentation is honest.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a UAV-based semantic 3D reconstruction pipeline that combines Feature-3DGS with CLIP-LSeg feature fields to enable language-guided segmentation of outdoor aerial scenes. The pipeline renders cosine-similarity heatmaps from text prompts, thresholds them to obtain coarse segmentations, and uses the highest-activation point as a point prompt for SAM or SAM2 to produce refined 2D masks. The authors train separate Feature-3DGS models with CLIP-LSeg, SAM, and SAM2 features on two custom UAV datasets, report rendering metrics in Table I, and provide qualitative comparisons of the feature fields and segmentation results. The central claim is a proof-of-concept: language queries can drive object segmentation in outdoor 3D scenes.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper offers a useful proof-of-concept for semantic aerial inspection, showing that a hybrid CLIP-LSeg-to-SAM pipeline can run on real UAV-captured outdoor scenes without task-specific fine-tuning. The strengths are the use of two real outdoor datasets, the side-by-side comparison of three feature field backbones, and the simplicity and reproducibility of the overall pipeline. However, the central feasibility claim currently rests on a single qualitative example, and the absence of quantitative segmentation evaluation, view-consistency measurements, and baseline comparisons limits the strength of the contribution. The significance is therefore conditional on the additional validation requested in the major comments.

major comments (5)

[Section IV-D, Figure 6] The paper's central feasibility claim, stated as "This result demonstrates the feasibility of using language queries to drive object segmentation in outdoor 3D scenes," is supported by only one qualitative example (the dome prompt on the Observatory dataset). A single favorable rendering cannot be distinguished from a cherry-picked case. Please provide quantitative evidence across multiple prompts and held-out views, such as the fraction of views in which the argmax heatmap point lands on the queried object, and the IoU between the SAM/SAM2 masks and manually annotated ground-truth masks, including explicit failure cases.
[Section III-C and Section IV-C] The point-prompt stage is load-bearing: the entire second stage depends on the highest-activation pixel of the rendered CLIP-LSeg heatmap being a valid SAM point prompt. Because each rendered pixel is an alpha-composited blend of per-Gaussian features, the argmax can be pulled toward background or neighboring structures, especially given the moderate reconstruction quality (PSNR ≈ 22 in Table I). No view-consistency or localization accuracy metric is reported. Please add measurements of argmax displacement relative to object masks across multiple novel views, and compare the current argmax strategy with alternatives such as centroid-of-thresholded-region or multiple point prompts.
[Section IV-B] The heatmap binarization threshold is a free parameter whose value is never reported. The paper itself acknowledges that thresholding is sensitive to the score distribution and can oversegment or miss areas, so the chosen threshold should be disclosed, and a sensitivity analysis should be provided. Without this, the rough segmentation stage is not reproducible and its contribution to the final result is unclear.
[Table I] Table I reports a single PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS value per dataset with no variance across training runs or test views, and no comparison to a standard 3DGS or LangSplat baseline trained on the same data. The claim of "high visual fidelity" is asserted on the basis of PSNR ≈ 22 and SSIM ≈ 0.64–0.68, which are moderate values; please report means and standard deviations over test views and training runs, and include a baseline to contextualize the reconstruction quality.
[Section IV-A] The comparison of CLIP-LSeg, SAM, and SAM2 feature fields is entirely qualitative; statements such as "strong semantic coherence," "more granular," and "visually noisier and less interpretable" are not backed by any quantitative measure. Please provide at least one quantitative proxy, for example view-to-view feature consistency within semantically coherent regions, clustering purity against sparse manual annotations, or zero-shot retrieval accuracy for object prompts, so that the conclusions of Section IV-A are supported.

minor comments (5)

[Section II-B] The heading contains a typo: "Spaltting" should be "Splatting."
[Section IV-B] The text says "Figure 3(b) overlays a thresholded version of this heatmap," but the thresholded heatmap is in Figure 4(b); the reference should be corrected.
[Section III-B] The text uses "SAM1" in one place and "SAM" elsewhere; please unify the terminology for consistency.
[Throughout] The manuscript frequently writes "UA V" with a space (e.g., in the Abstract and Introduction); this should be "UAV" throughout.
[Section IV-E / Datasets] The paper uses two custom datasets and does not include a reproducibility or data-availability statement; adding one would help readers assess the qualitative results and re-run the pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pipeline is an empirical composition of external pretrained models and its feasibility claim is not definitionally tied to its inputs.

full rationale

Every load-bearing component of this paper is an empirical composition of externally pretrained models (CLIP, LSeg, SAM/SAM2, Feature-3DGS) applied to newly captured UAV data. There is no derivation chain in which a quantity is defined in terms of its own prediction: the CLIP-LSeg heatmap is computed by cosine similarity between a text embedding and rendered per-Gaussian features, and the argmax point is a concrete algorithmic output that can fail, with the paper explicitly conceding failure modes such as sensitivity to prompt phrasing and thresholding. No parameter is fitted to the reported 'dome' result, and no threshold value is tuned or renamed as a prediction. All citations are to external prior work with no author overlap, and none is invoked to forbid alternatives or to supply an unverified uniqueness premise. The point-prompt stage is arguably under-validated, but under-validation is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity. Under the hard rule that circularity requires a quotable reduction of a claim to its inputs, no such reduction exists here.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; it relies entirely on existing models and datasets. The only adjustable element is the heatmap threshold, which we list as a free parameter. No circular derivation is present.

free parameters (1)

Heatmap binarization threshold = not reported (set by inspection per prompt/view)
The threshold converts CLIP-LSeg cosine similarity heatmaps into rough binary segmentations (Section III-C). Its value is not specified and appears hand-tuned across prompts and views, affecting the qualitative segmentation output.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption COLMAP sparse reconstruction produces accurate camera poses for the captured UAV image sets
All downstream 3DGS and feature field work assumes the poses from COLMAP are correct (Section III-A).
domain assumption Feature-3DGS dual-branch distillation preserves semantic features across novel views
The pipeline relies on rendered feature fields being semantically consistent with the scene (Section III-B).
domain assumption CLIP-LSeg cosine similarity between text prompt and rendered feature roughly reflects semantic relevance
Heatmaps are computed as cosine similarity and are the sole driver of the point prompt (Section III-C).
domain assumption SAM and SAM2 point prompts produce useful segmentations on aerial-view renderings despite being trained primarily on natural images
The refinement stage assumes a single point is enough for SAM/SAM2 to segment the right object in a UAV photo (Section III-C, limitations in Section IV-E).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Flight to Insight: Semantic 3D Reconstruction for Aerial Inspection via Gaussian Splatting and Language-Guided Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2OWLRU4

@misc{pith2026250517402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Flight to Insight: Semantic 3D Reconstruction for Aerial Inspection via Gaussian Splatting and Language-Guided Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2OWLRU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17402}
}

read the original abstract

High-fidelity 3D reconstruction is critical for aerial inspection tasks such as infrastructure monitoring, structural assessment, and environmental surveying. While traditional photogrammetry techniques enable geometric modeling, they lack semantic interpretability, limiting their effectiveness for automated inspection workflows. Recent advances in neural rendering and 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) offer efficient, photorealistic reconstructions but similarly lack scene-level understanding. In this work, we present a UAV-based pipeline that extends Feature-3DGS for language-guided 3D segmentation. We leverage LSeg-based feature fields with CLIP embeddings to generate heatmaps in response to language prompts. These are thresholded to produce rough segmentations, and the highest-scoring point is then used as a prompt to SAM or SAM2 for refined 2D segmentation on novel view renderings. Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of various feature field backbones (CLIP-LSeg, SAM, SAM2) in capturing meaningful structure in large-scale outdoor environments. We demonstrate that this hybrid approach enables flexible, language-driven interaction with photorealistic 3D reconstructions, opening new possibilities for semantic aerial inspection and scene understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17402 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Renderings of the 3D feature fields for the Building dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Renderings of the 3D feature fields for the Observatory dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: LSeg thresholded segmentation with the prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of the point-prompted SAM segmenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d,

N. Snavely, S. M. Seitz, and R. Szeliski, “Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d,”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 25, p. 835–846, July 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Structure-from-motion revisited,

J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” inConference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016

2016
[3]

A com- parison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms,

S. Seitz, B. Curless, J. Diebel, D. Scharstein, and R. Szeliski, “A com- parison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms,” in2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’06), vol. 1, pp. 519–528, 2006

work page 2006
[4]

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

B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99– 106, 2021

2021
[5]

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. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

2023
[6]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark,et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 8748–8763, PmLR, 2021

2021
[7]

Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning,

M. Cherti, R. Beaumont, R. Wightman, M. Wortsman, G. Ilharco, C. Gordon, C. Schuhmann, L. Schmidt, and J. Jitsev, “Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pp. 2818–2829, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Language-driven semantic segmentation,

B. Li, K. Q. Weinberger, S. Belongie, V . Koltun, and R. Ranftl, “Language-driven semantic segmentation,” inInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 24 references

[9]

Segment anything,

A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Gir- shick, “Segment anything,”arXiv:2304.02643, 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, E. Mintun, J. Pan, K. V . Alwala, N. Carion, C.-Y . Wu, R. Girshick, P. Doll ´ar, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

2024 arXiv
[11]

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

S. Zhou, H. Chang, S. Jiang, Z. Fan, Z. Zhu, D. Xu, P. Chari, S. You, Z. Wang, and A. Kadambi, “Feature 3dgs: Supercharging 3d gaussian splatting to enable distilled feature fields,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21676...

2024
[12]

Uav photogrammetry for mapping and 3d modeling – current status and future perspectives,

F. Remondino, L. Barazzetti, F. Nex, M. Scaioni, and D. Sarazzi, “Uav photogrammetry for mapping and 3d modeling – current status and future perspectives,”The International Archives of the Photogramme- try, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XXXVIII- 1/C22, ...

2011
[13]

Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision,

C. Jia, Y . Yang, Y . Xia, Y .-T. Chen, Z. Parekh, H. Pham, Q. Le, Y .-H. Sung, Z. Li, and T. Duerig, “Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision,” inProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning(M. Meila an...

2021
[14]

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

A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly,et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

2010 arXiv
[15]

Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 10012–10022, 2021

2021
[16]

Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 16000–16009, 2022

2022
[17]

Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers,

H. Bao, L. Dong, S. Piao, and F. Wei, “Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254, 2021

2021 arXiv
[18]

Emerging properties in self-supervised vision trans- formers,

M. Caron, H. Touvron, I. Misra, H. J ´egou, J. Mairal, P. Bojanowski, and A. Joulin, “Emerging properties in self-supervised vision trans- formers,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 9650–9660, 2021

2021
[19]

Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khali- dov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby,et al., “Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

2023 arXiv
[20]

Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,

T. Ren, S. Liu, A. Zeng, J. Lin, K. Li, H. Cao, J. Chen, X. Huang, Y . Chen, F. Yan,et al., “Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159, 2024

2024 arXiv
[21]

Point-sam: Promptable 3d segmentation model for point clouds,

Y . Zhou, J. Gu, T. Y . Chiang, F. Xiang, and H. Su, “Point-sam: Promptable 3d segmentation model for point clouds,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17741, 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting,

M. Qin, W. Li, J. Zhou, H. Wang, and H. Pfister, “Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 20051– 20060, 2024

2024
[23]

3d gaussian ray tracing: Fast tracing of particle scenes,

N. Moenne-Loccoz, A. Mirzaei, O. Perel, R. de Lutio, J. M. Esturo, G. State, S. Fidler, N. Sharp, and Z. Gojcic, “3d gaussian ray tracing: Fast tracing of particle scenes,”ACM Transactions on Graphics and SIGGRAPH Asia, 2024

2024
[24]

3dgut: Enabling distorted cameras and secondary rays in gaussian splatting,

Q. Wu, J. Martinez Esturo, A. Mirzaei, N. Moenne-Loccoz, and Z. Gojcic, “3dgut: Enabling distorted cameras and secondary rays in gaussian splatting,”Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d,

N. Snavely, S. M. Seitz, and R. Szeliski, “Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d,”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 25, p. 835–846, July 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Structure-from-motion revisited,

J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” inConference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016

2016

[3] [3]

A com- parison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms,

S. Seitz, B. Curless, J. Diebel, D. Scharstein, and R. Szeliski, “A com- parison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms,” in2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’06), vol. 1, pp. 519–528, 2006

work page 2006

[4] [4]

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

B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99– 106, 2021

2021

[5] [5]

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. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark,et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 8748–8763, PmLR, 2021

2021

[7] [7]

Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning,

M. Cherti, R. Beaumont, R. Wightman, M. Wortsman, G. Ilharco, C. Gordon, C. Schuhmann, L. Schmidt, and J. Jitsev, “Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pp. 2818–2829, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Language-driven semantic segmentation,

B. Li, K. Q. Weinberger, S. Belongie, V . Koltun, and R. Ranftl, “Language-driven semantic segmentation,” inInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2022

work page 2022