Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

UA-Pose: Uncertainty-Aware 6D Object Pose Estimation and Online Object Completion with Partial References

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that labeling unseen object regions as uncertain lets 6D pose estimation work from just two reference views or a single RGB image, and that this uncertainty signal can trigger online completion exactly when the object…

desk verdict Solid systems paper on uncertainty-gated online completion for partial-reference pose estimation, but the headline gains over FoundationPose are inflated by a weakened baseline and hand-picked references. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07996 v1 pith:LW7WBZ7H submitted 2025-06-09 cs.CV cs.RO

Ming-Feng Li , Xin Yang , Fu-En Wang , Hritam Basak , Yuyin Sun , Shreekant Gayaka , Min Sun , Cheng-Hao Kuo This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords 6DobjectposeestimationpartialreferencesuncertaintymodelingonlinecompletionneuralsigneddistancefieldseenIoUimage-to-3DRGBDtracking
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 6D object pose estimation can work from partial references—two posed RGBD images or a single unposed RGB image—instead of requiring a complete textured CAD model or a dense set of posed views. Its central move is to build an incomplete 3D model whose unseen regions are explicitly labeled uncertain, to use the overlap between the seen part and the test mask (seen IoU) as a per-frame confidence signal, and to trigger online completion only when that confidence drops. If the method is right, pose estimation becomes usable in precisely the settings where current strong baselines degrade: robot manipulation sequences and hand-object interactions with frequent rotation, occlusion, and sparse initial views.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid representation M=(E,U): a closed mesh extracted from a neural signed distance field learned from whatever partial references exist, decorated with a per-vertex binary uncertainty map marking seen and unseen regions. Its work is to ground three decisions in one geometric signal: render the certain region, measure seen IoU against the test mask, and use the result to reject unreliable pose hypotheses, to filter which frames enter the memory pool, and to trigger uncertainty-aware sampling for online SDF retraining when the model's seen part stops explaining the observation.

What would settle it

Give the method two randomly chosen reference images per object (not manually selected to cover the first test frame) on all YCBInEOAT sequences and report MeanADD per sequence; if the gap to FoundationPose collapses or completion triggers on almost every frame, the manual selection is carrying the claimed improvement. A comparable test corrupts the off-the-shelf test masks by dilating or eroding them and checks whether the seen-IoU gate still tracks true pose accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that uncertainty is the missing ingredient for pose estimation from partial references. It represents the object as a hybrid mesh M=(E,U), where E is a closed surface extracted by marching cubes from a neural SDF trained on the reference images, and U labels every vertex seen in any reference as certain and every other vertex as uncertain. From this representation it computes seen IoU—the intersection over union of the rendered certain region with the test object mask—and uses that single number to filter pose hypotheses, admit frames into the memory pool, and decide when to retrain the SDF online. On YCBInEOAT with two posed RGBD references, MeanADD reaches 89.99 versus 68.52 for FoundationPose; on HO3D with a single unposed RGB image, it reaches 83.23 versus 72.06.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reference images are chosen so that the first test frame's viewpoint is already covered by the model's 'seen' region, and that the off-the-shelf segmentation masks are accurate; if references are random or masks are wrong, the seen-IoU signal that drives filtering and completion loses its meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With two posed RGBD references, the pipeline no longer needs a full CAD model or 16 dense views; on YCBInEOAT MeanADD improves from 68.52 to 89.99.
  • A single unposed RGB image suffices as a reference when paired with an image-to-3D generator; on HO3D ADD-AUC reaches 83.23 versus 72.06 for the baseline.
  • Object completion runs only when the seen-IoU confidence drops below a threshold, keeping most frames at refinement speed under 0.02 seconds and cutting the number of rebuilds from 181 to 58 in the ablation.
  • Frames whose seen IoU is low are kept out of the memory pool, preventing noisy SDF training from corrupted pose estimates.
  • The uncertainty label also lets synthesized image-to-3D renderings supervise only the unseen parts of the object, avoiding conflicting supervision in regions already covered by real frames.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The seen-IoU gate is a transferable mechanism: the same signal could be glued onto other render-and-compare trackers without retraining their refinement networks, since it only needs a rendered certain mask and a test mask.
  • The paper's protocol chooses reference images that cover the first test frame and evaluates single-RGB YCB-Video on a four-object subset; a fair stress test would use random reference pairs and the full object set, since the reported gap may partly reflect favorable coverage rather than the method alone.
  • The uncertainty map could double as an active-viewpoint planner: a robot could aim its next observation at the mesh region with the highest concentration of unseen vertices, turning completion into a deliberate exploration policy.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. UA-Pose proposes an uncertainty-aware 6D object pose estimation method for partial reference inputs. The method builds a hybrid object representation that combines a neural-SDF-derived mesh with a vertex-level uncertainty map labeling seen and unseen regions, uses a seen-IoU metric to filter pose hypotheses and gate an online object completion loop, and optionally leverages a single-image-to-3D model when only one unposed RGB image is available. The authors evaluate on YCB-Video, YCBInEOAT, and HO3D, reporting large gains over FoundationPose in the two-reference RGBD setting and in the single-RGB image-to-3D setting, with ablations showing that removing the completion loop, uncertainty-aware completion triggering, image filtering, or uncertainty-aware sampling degrades performance.

Significance. If validated, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it extends a strong model-free pose estimator to settings where only two posed RGBD references or a single unposed RGB image are available, and it introduces a simple, interpretable uncertainty signal that demonstrably reduces the number of costly online reconstructions. The internal ablations are consistent with the claimed mechanism, and the uncertainty-aware sampling strategy is clearly described and cheap to compute. However, the evaluation protocol currently contains several load-bearing threats: manually selected references that cover the first test frame, a possibly degraded FoundationPose checkpoint, curated subsets and excluded sequences in key experiments, and a test-time-adaptation design whose gains are not compared against a non-uncertainty online-completion baseline. The significance of the headline claim therefore depends on whether these protocol issues are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary B] The protocol for selecting the two RGBD references is load-bearing because Table 4 shows that the entire gain over FoundationPose is attributable to the online completion loop (68.52 to 89.99 MeanADD), and that loop is initialized from these references. The manual selection 'to ensure that the first frame of the test images is covered by the selected references' gives UA-Pose a near-oracle starting viewpoint; under random or adversarial partial references, the memory pool and completion trigger would behave differently. Please report results averaged over random reference pairs (or over all pairs in S) with standard deviations, and state explicitly whether the first-frame coverage condition is necessary for the claimed improvement.
  2. [Supplementary A] The note that the FoundationPose checkpoint used for the baseline 'was not trained on diffusion-augmented data, which may lead to performance degradation compared to the expected results reported in [45]' is a direct threat to the headline comparison. Since all central tables (Tables 1-3) compare against this checkpoint, the reported margins could be inflated. Please either use a checkpoint that reproduces the published FoundationPose numbers, quantify the degradation on the present benchmarks, or clearly label every baseline number as coming from a possibly degraded checkpoint; without this, the claimed 'significant performance improvements' are not fully supportable.
  3. [Supplementary E and Supplementary B] The evaluation restricts the YCB-Video single-RGB experiment to a curated 4-object subset and excludes the 'tomato soup can' sequence from Figure 9 due to pose-estimation failures. Such exclusions are acceptable only if they are disclosed prominently in the main paper and accompanied by results on the full set; as written, the main-text claim of 'significant performance improvements over existing methods' is not demonstrated for the full benchmark or for arbitrary partial references. Please report full-set numbers, or clearly state in the abstract and conclusion that the claim is limited to the curated subset and to sequences without known failure modes.
  4. [Table 4] The ablation shows that 'w/o object completion' exactly reproduces the FoundationPose 2-reference baseline (MeanADD 68.52), and the full method's gain comes from repeatedly retraining the SDF on test frames and re-evaluating on those same frames. This is test-time adaptation. To establish that the uncertainty-aware gating, filtering, and sampling are the cause of the gain, the comparison needs a strong non-uncertainty baseline that also performs online completion under the same protocol (for example, completion triggered by geodesic distance only, with no seen-IoU filter), and ideally a per-frame breakdown of accuracy before versus after each completion event. Without that, the central claim conflates 'online completion helps' with 'uncertainty-aware completion is what helps.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The headings contain the typo 'Uncentainty-aware'; please correct them to 'Uncertainty-aware'.
  2. [Equation (8)] Equation (8) is typeset incorrectly: the fraction bar is missing and the denominator expression is ambiguous; please define the pixel-count operator P explicitly and rewrite the formula as a fraction.
  3. [Tables 1-3] Chamfer Distance values are reported without units; please state the unit (centimeters) consistently in the table captions or in a common note.
  4. [Table 3] In the single-RGB row, the CD of UA-Pose (0.88) is worse than FoundationPose (0.76) while ADD/ADD-S are better; the text explains texture issues, but the caption or text should state explicitly that CD and pose accuracy are not expected to move together in this comparison.
  5. [Figure 9] The y-axis of Figure 9 starts near 60 and the 'tomato soup can' exclusion is only discussed in the supplementary; please either show the full plot or mark the excluded sequence and its effect in the main text.
  6. [Supplementary A.2] Several thresholds (Tu, Ts, Tconf, Tcomplete, Tgeo, Tgen) are listed, but no sensitivity analysis is reported; a small study varying Tcomplete, which directly controls the completion trigger, would strengthen the claim that the results are not sensitive to threshold choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UA-Pose's reported gains come from a test-time completion loop evaluated against external baselines, and the paper's ablations isolate the contribution rather than hiding it.

full rationale

UA-Pose is an empirical system, not a derivation, and I found no step in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of itself or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The uncertainty map (Sec. 3.2.2) is defined by projecting reference or memory-pool masks onto a mesh, and the seen-IoU metric (Eq. 9) is then used as a pose-confidence filter; this is a feedback control loop, but the pose hypotheses are produced by the external pretrained refinement and selection modules of FoundationPose [45], so the confidence metric does not by construction determine the reported ADD and ADD-S numbers. Table 4's 'w/o object completion' row exactly matches the FoundationPose 2-reference baseline, which is a sanity check showing that the ablation isolates the completion effect rather than obscuring it. The citations to [44, 45, 47] are external prior work with no author overlap with the submitted paper, so no load-bearing self-citation chain exists. The manual 2-reference selection (Supp. B) and the 4-object YCB-Video subset are evaluation-protocol choices that affect generalizability and external validity, but they do not make the method's outputs equivalent to its inputs. Consequently, the paper is self-contained with respect to circularity and scores 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-set thresholds and on external modules (segmentation, FoundationPose networks) whose reliability is assumed rather than measured. No new physical entity is introduced; the uncertainty map is a derived representation. The most important uncharged input is the favorable test setup: manually selected references and a curated subset.

free parameters (8)
  • Tu, Ts = 0.5, 0.5
    Pose hypotheses are rejected when uncertainty rate exceeds Tu or seen IoU falls below Ts (Supp. A.2); hand-set thresholds used in all experiments.
  • Tconf = 0.5
    Frames are added to the memory pool only if seen IoU exceeds Tconf (Supp. A.2).
  • Tcomplete = 0.7
    Online object completion is triggered when seen IoU of the current frame drops below Tcomplete (Supp. A.2).
  • Tgeo = 10 degrees
    A frame enters the pool only if its rotational geodesic distance from the last added frame exceeds Tgeo (Supp. A.2).
  • K (memory pool size) = 30
    Memory pool stores at most 30 frames (Supp. A.2).
  • Nv, Nin = 42, 12
    Pose initialization samples 42 viewpoints and 12 in-plane rotations, giving 504 hypotheses (Supp. A.2).
  • Scaling factor set S = {0.8, ..., 1.2}, |S|=11
    Coarse-to-fine model rescaling samples 11 scaling factors and refines iteratively three times (Supp. C).
  • Tgen = 45 degrees
    The initial generated model is replaced once the rotation from the initial pose exceeds Tgen (Supp. C).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Test frames are a sequential video of the same object with known camera intrinsics.
    Used throughout Sec. 3.3 for pose tracking from the previous frame and for accumulating a memory pool; if the test frames are not sequential, the initialization and refinement protocol would need to change.
  • domain assumption Per-frame 2D object masks from the off-the-shelf segmenter are accurate enough that seen IoU is meaningful.
    Sec. 3.3 states masks are determined by Track Anything [48]; no mask accuracy is reported, yet masks drive pose filtering and completion triggers.
  • domain assumption FoundationPose's pretrained pose refinement and selection networks transfer to incomplete and generated 3D models.
    The method uses the public checkpoints from [45] for refinement and selection (Sec. 3.3, Supp. A); the paper's own Sec. F admits these networks sometimes select obviously incorrect poses on incomplete models.
  • domain assumption Visual-hull style visibility from 2D masks correctly separates seen from unseen mesh vertices.
    Sec. 3.2.2 defines uncertainty by rasterizing vertices and checking visibility in reference views; this assumes masks bound the object well enough for the seen/unseen split.
  • standard math Marching cubes on the trained SDF yields a closed surface that supports rendering and visibility checks.
    Sec. 3.2.1 extracts the mesh with marching cubes and relies on its closure for viewpoint coverage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UA-Pose: Uncertainty-Aware 6D Object Pose Estimation and Online Object Completion with Partial References." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LW7WBZ7H

@misc{pith2026250607996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UA-Pose: Uncertainty-Aware 6D Object Pose Estimation and Online Object Completion with Partial References},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LW7WBZ7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07996}
}
read the original abstract

6D object pose estimation has shown strong generalizability to novel objects. However, existing methods often require either a complete, well-reconstructed 3D model or numerous reference images that fully cover the object. Estimating 6D poses from partial references, which capture only fragments of an object's appearance and geometry, remains challenging. To address this, we propose UA-Pose, an uncertainty-aware approach for 6D object pose estimation and online object completion specifically designed for partial references. We assume access to either (1) a limited set of RGBD images with known poses or (2) a single 2D image. For the first case, we initialize a partial object 3D model based on the provided images and poses, while for the second, we use image-to-3D techniques to generate an initial object 3D model. Our method integrates uncertainty into the incomplete 3D model, distinguishing between seen and unseen regions. This uncertainty enables confidence assessment in pose estimation and guides an uncertainty-aware sampling strategy for online object completion, enhancing robustness in pose estimation accuracy and improving object completeness. We evaluate our method on the YCB-Video, YCBInEOAT, and HO3D datasets, including RGBD sequences of YCB objects manipulated by robots and human hands. Experimental results demonstrate significant performance improvements over existing methods, particularly when object observations are incomplete or partially captured. Project page: https://minfenli.github.io/UA-Pose/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of UA-Pose. (a) We initialize an incomplete object 3D model M (Sec. 3.2), which is a hybrid mesh that com￾bines texture, geometry, and uncertainty. (b) Given a sequence of RGBD test images, our method estimates the 6D pose of the ob￾ject in each test image (Sec. 3.3) based on the incomplete model M. (c) While more test images are captured, we store them with estimated poses in a memory pool, which will be u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hybrid Object Representation Modeling. We pro￾pose a hybrid object representation (Sec. 3.2) that integrates the object’s texture, geometry, and uncertainty. (a) First, a neural SDF is trained and extracted as a mesh representing the object’s appear￾ance and geometry (Sec. 3.2.1). (b) Then, we check the visibility of each mesh vertex from the viewpoint of each reference image to create the uncertainty map (Sec. 3.2.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pipeline for Uncertainty-Aware Pose Estimation. Through uncertainty modeling (Sec. 3.2.2), we propose an uncertainty-aware pipeline to assess the confidence of estimated poses (Sec. 3.3). For each estimated pose, we calculate its seen IoU, which measures the overlap between the seen regions of the 3D model and the 2D object mask for the test image. When seen IoU is high, the pose is deemed confident, and both the po… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pipeline for leveraging generated models. In Sec. 3.5, the initial model generated by image-to-3D techniques is used to estimate poses for the first few frames. As more frames are cap￾tured, a refined object model is trained to replace the initial gen￾erated model, res…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on the YCBInEOAT. Ob￾ject image (left) and depth map (right) pairs are rendered based on the estimated object poses using the incomplete model. With￾out uncertainty-aware mechanisms and Online Object Completion (referred to as “w/o OOC”), the inc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pipeline for rescaling the generated model. The gen￾erated object model must be rescaled to match the actual object size in the test images for accurate pose estimation. (a) In the first stage, the coarse size of the model is estimated using the first frame of the test…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results on the YCB-Video dataset. We compare our method with FoundationPose [45] using an object 3D model generated from a single RGB image by the image-to-3D approach [47]. The columns, from left to right, display the test RGBD images (left: RGB, right: de…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Leveraging image-to-3D approaches for pose estimation across diverse reference images and test sequences. We demon￾strates the diversity and effectiveness of our method in utilizing the image-to-3D approach [47] to generate object 3D models for various test sequences. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effects of the number of reference images. The ADD￾S scores in the YCBInEOAT dataset with 2, 4, 8, and 16 reference images are reported. Our method demonstrates stable performance across different numbers of reference images, while Foundation￾Pose [27] shows significan…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Incorrectly selected hypothesis. Given a test RGBD image (left: RGB, right: depth), the pose selection module [45] scores all pose hypotheses and selects the one with the highest score as the pose estimation result. However, the selection module may occasionally assig…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects.CVPR, 2024

    Bowen Wen, Wei Yang, Jan Kautz, and Stan Birchfield. Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects.CVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Zs6d: Zero-shot 6d object pose estimation using vision transformers.ICRA,

    Philipp Ausserlechner, David Haberger, Stefan Thalhammer, Jean-Baptiste Weibel, and Markus Vincze. Zs6d: Zero-shot 6d object pose estimation using vision transformers.ICRA,

    work page

  3. [2]

    Freeze: Training-free zero-shot 6d pose estimation with geometric and vision foundation models.ECCV, 2024

    Andrea Caraffa, Davide Boscaini, Amir Hamza, and Fabio Poiesi. Freeze: Training-free zero-shot 6d pose estimation with geometric and vision foundation models.ECCV, 2024. 1, 2

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Learn- ing canonical shape space for category-level 6D object pose and size estimation

    Dengsheng Chen, Jun Li, Zheng Wang, and Kai Xu. Learn- ing canonical shape space for category-level 6D object pose and size estimation. InCVPR, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Zeropose: Cad- prompted zero-shot object 6d pose estimation in cluttered scenes.TCSVT, 2024

    Jianqiu Chen, Zikun Zhou, Mingshan Sun, Rui Zhao, Li- wei Wu, Tianpeng Bao, and Zhenyu He. Zeropose: Cad- prompted zero-shot object 6d pose estimation in cluttered scenes.TCSVT, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes

    Amos Gropp, Lior Yariv, Niv Haim, Matan Atzmon, and Yaron Lipman. Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes. InICML, 2020. 4

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Honnotate: A method for 3d annotation of hand and object poses

    Shreyas Hampali, Mahdi Rad, Markus Oberweger, and Vin- cent Lepetit. Honnotate: A method for 3d annotation of hand and object poses. InCVPR, 2020. 7

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    OnePose++: Keypoint-free one- shot object pose estimation without CAD models.NeurIPS,

    Xingyi He, Jiaming Sun, Yuang Wang, Di Huang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. OnePose++: Keypoint-free one- shot object pose estimation without CAD models.NeurIPS,

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    PVN3D: A deep point-wise 3D keypoints voting network for 6DoF pose estimation

    Yisheng He, Wei Sun, Haibin Huang, Jianran Liu, Haoqiang Fan, and Jian Sun. PVN3D: A deep point-wise 3D keypoints voting network for 6DoF pose estimation. InCVPR, 2020. 2

    2020

  2. [9]

    FFB6D: A full flow bidirectional fusion network for 6D pose estimation

    Yisheng He, Haibin Huang, Haoqiang Fan, Qifeng Chen, and Jian Sun. FFB6D: A full flow bidirectional fusion network for 6D pose estimation. InCVPR, 2021. 2

    2021

  3. [10]

    Fs6d: Few-shot 6d pose estimation of novel objects

    Yisheng He, Yao Wang, Haoqiang Fan, Jian Sun, and Qifeng Chen. Fs6d: Few-shot 6d pose estimation of novel objects. InCVPR, 2022. 1, 2, 7

    2022

  4. [11]

    Matchu: Matching unseen objects for 6d pose estimation from rgb-d images

    Junwen Huang, Hao Yu, Kuan-Ting Yu, Nassir Navab, Slo- bodan Ilic, and Benjamin Busam. Matchu: Matching unseen objects for 6d pose estimation from rgb-d images. InCVPR,

  5. [12]

    Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d

    Justin Johnson, Nikhila Ravi, Jeremy Reizenstein, David Novotny, Shubham Tulsiani, Christoph Lassner, and Steve Branson. Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d. In SIGGRAPH. 2020. 11

    2020

  6. [13]

    CosyPose: Consistent multi-view multi-object 6D pose estimation

    Yann Labb ´e, Justin Carpentier, Mathieu Aubry, and Josef Sivic. CosyPose: Consistent multi-view multi-object 6D pose estimation. InECCV, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [14]

    MegaPose: 6D pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare

    Yann Labb ´e, Lucas Manuelli, Arsalan Mousavian, Stephen Tyree, Stan Birchfield, Jonathan Tremblay, Justin Carpentier, Mathieu Aubry, Dieter Fox, and Josef Sivic. MegaPose: 6D pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare. In CoRL, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  8. [15]

    Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering.TOG, 2020

    Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Seol, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering.TOG, 2020. 11

    2020

  9. [16]

    The visual hull concept for silhouette-based image understanding.IEEE TPAMI, 1994

    Aldo Laurentini. The visual hull concept for silhouette-based image understanding.IEEE TPAMI, 1994. 3

    1994

  10. [17]

    TTA-COPE: Test-time adaptation for category-level object pose estimation

    Taeyeop Lee, Jonathan Tremblay, Valts Blukis, Bowen Wen, Byeong-Uk Lee, Inkyu Shin, Stan Birchfield, In So Kweon, and Kuk-Jin Yoon. TTA-COPE: Test-time adaptation for category-level object pose estimation. InCVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  11. [18]

    Sam-6d: Segment anything model meets zero-shot 6d object pose es- timation

    Jiehong Lin, Lihua Liu, Dekun Lu, and Kui Jia. Sam-6d: Segment anything model meets zero-shot 6d object pose es- timation. InCVPR, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  12. [19]

    Robotic continuous grasping system by shape transformer- guided multi-object category-level 6d pose estimation.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2023

    Jian Liu, Wei Sun, Chongpei Liu, Xing Zhang, and Qiang Fu. Robotic continuous grasping system by shape transformer- guided multi-object category-level 6d pose estimation.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2023. 1

    2023

  13. [20]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tok- makov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. InICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  14. [21]

    Gen6D: Generalizable model-free 6-DoF object pose estimation from RGB images

    Yuan Liu, Yilin Wen, Sida Peng, Cheng Lin, Xiaoxiao Long, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Gen6D: Generalizable model-free 6-DoF object pose estimation from RGB images. ECCV, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  15. [22]

    Syncdreamer: Learning to generate multiview-consistent images from a single-view image.ICLR, 2024

    Yuan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Learning to generate multiview-consistent images from a single-view image.ICLR, 2024. 3

    2024

  16. [23]

    Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, and Wenping Wang. Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. CVPR, 2024. 3, 13

    2024

  17. [24]

    Pose estimation for augmented reality: A hands-on survey

    Eric Marchand, Hideaki Uchiyama, and Fabien Spindler. Pose estimation for augmented reality: A hands-on survey. TVCG, 2015. 1

    2015

  18. [25]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding.TOG, 2022

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding.TOG, 2022. 11, 12

    2022

  19. [26]

    Gigapose: Fast and robust novel object pose estimation via one correspondence.CVPR, 2024

    Van Nguyen Nguyen, Thibault Groueix, Mathieu Salzmann, and Vincent Lepetit. Gigapose: Fast and robust novel object pose estimation via one correspondence.CVPR, 2024. 1, 3, 13

    2024

  20. [27]

    Found- pose: Unseen object pose estimation with foundation fea- tures.ECCV, 2024

    Evin Pınar ¨Ornek, Yann Labb ´e, Bugra Tekin, Lingni Ma, Cem Keskin, Christian Forster, and Tomas Hodan. Found- pose: Unseen object pose estimation with foundation fea- tures.ECCV, 2024. 1, 15

    2024

  21. [28]

    Pix2Pose: Pixel-wise coordinate regression of objects for 6D pose esti- mation

    Kiru Park, Timothy Patten, and Markus Vincze. Pix2Pose: Pixel-wise coordinate regression of objects for 6D pose esti- mation. InICCV, 2019. 2

    2019

  22. [29]

    Magic123: One image to high-quality 3d object generation using both 2d and 3d diffusion priors.ICLR,

    Guocheng Qian, Jinjie Mai, Abdullah Hamdi, Jian Ren, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Bing Li, Hsin-Ying Lee, Ivan Sko- rokhodov, Peter Wonka, Sergey Tulyakov, and Bernard Ghanem. Magic123: One image to high-quality 3d object generation using both 2d and 3d diffusion priors.ICLR,

  23. [30]

    Kornia: an open source differentiable computer vision library for pytorch

    Edgar Riba, Dmytro Mishkin, Daniel Ponsa, Ethan Rublee, and Gary Bradski. Kornia: an open source differentiable computer vision library for pytorch. InWACV, 2020. 11

    2020

  24. [31]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110, 2023

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, and Hao Su. Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110, 2023. 3

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    OSOP: A multi-stage one shot object pose estimation frame- work

    Ivan Shugurov, Fu Li, Benjamin Busam, and Slobodan Ilic. OSOP: A multi-stage one shot object pose estimation frame- work. InCVPR, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  26. [33]

    Deep multi-state object pose estimation for augmented reality assembly

    Yongzhi Su, Jason Rambach, Nareg Minaskan, Paul Lesur, Alain Pagani, and Didier Stricker. Deep multi-state object pose estimation for augmented reality assembly. InISMAR- Adjunct, 2019. 1

    2019

  27. [34]

    Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers

    Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Yuang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers. InCVPR, 2021. 7

    2021

  28. [35]

    OnePose: One-shot object pose estimation without CAD models

    Jiaming Sun, Zihao Wang, Siyu Zhang, Xingyi He, Hongcheng Zhao, Guofeng Zhang, and Xiaowei Zhou. OnePose: One-shot object pose estimation without CAD models. InCVPR, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  29. [36]

    Shape prior deformation for categorical 6D object pose and size estima- tion

    Meng Tian, Marcelo H Ang, and Gim Hee Lee. Shape prior deformation for categorical 6D object pose and size estima- tion. InECCV, 2020. 2

    2020

  30. [37]

    Sv3d: Novel multi-view syn- thesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion

    Vikram V oleti, Chun-Han Yao, Mark Boss, Adam Letts, David Pankratz, Dmitry Tochilkin, Christian Laforte, Robin Rombach, and Varun Jampani. Sv3d: Novel multi-view syn- thesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion. InECCV, 2025. 3

    2025

  31. [38]

    Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6D object pose and size estimation

    He Wang, Srinath Sridhar, Jingwei Huang, Julien Valentin, Shuran Song, and Leonidas J Guibas. Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6D object pose and size estimation. InCVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  32. [39]

    NeuS: Learning neural im- plicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view recon- struction

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. NeuS: Learning neural im- plicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view recon- struction. InNeurIPS, 2021. 4

    2021

  33. [40]

    Bundletrack: 6d pose track- ing for novel objects without instance or category-level 3d models

    Bowen Wen and Kostas Bekris. Bundletrack: 6d pose track- ing for novel objects without instance or category-level 3d models. InIROS, 2021. 3, 8

    2021

  34. [41]

    se (3)-tracknet: Data-driven 6d pose tracking by cali- brating image residuals in synthetic domains

    Bowen Wen, Chaitanya Mitash, Baozhang Ren, and Kostas E Bekris. se (3)-tracknet: Data-driven 6d pose tracking by cali- brating image residuals in synthetic domains. InIROS, 2020. 7, 14

    2020

  35. [42]

    CatGrasp: Learning category-level task-relevant grasping in clutter from simulation

    Bowen Wen, Wenzhao Lian, Kostas Bekris, and Stefan Schaal. CatGrasp: Learning category-level task-relevant grasping in clutter from simulation. InICRA, 2022. 1

    2022

  36. [43]

    You only demonstrate once: Category-level manip- ulation from single visual demonstration.RSS, 2022

    Bowen Wen, Wenzhao Lian, Kostas Bekris, and Stefan Schaal. You only demonstrate once: Category-level manip- ulation from single visual demonstration.RSS, 2022. 1

    2022

  37. [44]

    Bundlesdf: Neural 6-dof tracking and 3d reconstruction of unknown objects

    Bowen Wen, Jonathan Tremblay, Valts Blukis, Stephen Tyree, Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Dieter Fox, Jan Kautz, and Stan Birchfield. Bundlesdf: Neural 6-dof tracking and 3d reconstruction of unknown objects. InCVPR, 2023. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11

    2023

  38. [46]

    Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes.RSS, 2018

    Yu Xiang, Tanner Schmidt, Venkatraman Narayanan, and Dieter Fox. Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes.RSS, 2018. 7, 11, 12

    2018

  39. [47]

    Instantmesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07191,

    Jiale Xu, Weihao Cheng, Yiming Gao, Xintao Wang, Shenghua Gao, and Ying Shan. Instantmesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07191,

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Track anything: Segment anything meets videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11968, 2023

    Jinyu Yang, Mingqi Gao, Zhe Li, Shang Gao, Fangjing Wang, and Feng Zheng. Track anything: Segment anything meets videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11968, 2023. 5, 11

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance.NeurIPS, 2020

    Lior Yariv, Yoni Kasten, Dror Moran, Meirav Galun, Matan Atzmon, Basri Ronen, and Yaron Lipman. Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance.NeurIPS, 2020. 3, 4

    2020

  42. [50]

    SSP-Pose: Symmetry-aware shape prior deformation for direct category-level object pose estimation

    Ruida Zhang, Yan Di, Fabian Manhardt, Federico Tombari, and Xiangyang Ji. SSP-Pose: Symmetry-aware shape prior deformation for direct category-level object pose estimation. InIROS, 2022. 2

    2022

  43. [51]

    HS-Pose: Hybrid scope feature extraction for category-level object pose estimation

    Linfang Zheng, Chen Wang, Yinghan Sun, Esha Dasgupta, Hua Chen, Ale ˇs Leonardis, Wei Zhang, and Hyung Jin Chang. HS-Pose: Hybrid scope feature extraction for category-level object pose estimation. InCVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  44. [52]

    Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam

    Zihan Zhu, Songyou Peng, Viktor Larsson, Weiwei Xu, Hu- jun Bao, Zhaopeng Cui, Martin R Oswald, and Marc Polle- feys. Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam. InCVPR, 2022. 8

    2022

  45. [53]

    single RGB + Image-to-3D

    Chungang Zhuang, Shaofei Li, and Han Ding. Instance segmentation based 6d pose estimation of industrial objects using point clouds for robotic bin-picking.Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2023. 1 Supplementary Materials A. Implementation Details The object image...

    2023

  46. [2024]

    3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14

Pith tools

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