Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 28 references

SPLATART: Articulated Gaussian Splatting with Estimated Object Structure

T0 review · 5 major / 7 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 SPLATART estimates part poses, joint parameters, and connectivity for tree-structured articulated objects, including seven-degree-of-freedom robot arms, from posed RGB images with sparse part segmentations, and renders configurations…

desk verdict Useful pipeline integration with a real deep-tree demonstration, but the evidence is thinner than the claims and the two-scene identifiability issue needs addressing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12184 v1 pith:YJJGHNDT submitted 2025-06-13 cs.RO cs.CV

Stanley Lewis , Vishal Chandra , Tom Gao , Odest Chadwicke Jenkins This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords articulatedobjectsGaussiansplattingkinematictreeestimationpartposejointparameterrobotmanipulatorssparsesegmentationnovelconfigurationrendering
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

This paper argues that the articulation structure of a tree-structured object—which parts there are, how they are posed in each observed scene, and which joints connect them—can be recovered from posed RGB images where only a subset of frames carry part segmentations, without any prior kinematic model. The proposed pipeline, SPLATART, builds a Gaussian splat for each scene, attaches semantic part scores to the splats, then jointly optimizes per-part poses and splat parameters across the two scenes so that each part renders correctly in the other scene's camera views. Once part poses are known, joint candidates are fit and a kinematic tree is assembled from pose differences. The paper demonstrates this on a synthetic two-part benchmark and on simulated robot arms with up to seven revolute joints, reporting part-motion errors at or below a strong baseline and rendering intermediate configurations that were never observed during training. A sympathetic reader would take the central bet to be that two observed configurations plus sparse labels are enough to synthesize an articulated object's full configuration space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the part-conditioned Gaussian splat: each rigid part is a set of 3D Gaussians with means, covariances, opacities, and spherical harmonics, plus a learned vector that scores how strongly each Gaussian belongs to each part. The mechanism that carries the argument is cross-scene pose optimization: for every part and every scene pair, the estimated transform between the two scenes is used to move that part's Gaussians into the other scene's coordinate frame, where they are rasterized and compared against the other scene's RGB, accumulation, and segmentation images. Because the splat parameters and the poses are updated together during this rendering loss, the geometry of each part is forced to explain both observed configurations; this is what produces completed geometry and accurate part motion. The joint estimation that follows is deliberately decoupled from geometry: revolute joints are parameterized by a rotation center, axis, and a fixed transform, prismatic joints by a fixed transform and translation axis, and a candidate joint is accepted only if transforming the source part's splat means yields an average distance to the target part's splat means below a threshold.

What would settle it

Capture a seven-joint arm in two scenes with one joint intentionally held nearly still (less than about one degree of motion), run the pipeline, and compare the estimated axis for that joint against the other joints; if the still joint's axis is not recovered accurately, the two-scene assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a configuration-conditioned renderer for an articulated object can be learned without knowing the object's structure in advance, using only two posed scenes and partial part labels. SPLATART treats each rigid part as its own canonical Gaussian splat with a semantic score per splat, and represents each scene by a pose per part. The part poses and the splat geometry are optimized together by rendering every part into the other scene's frames and minimizing a combined RGB, accumulation, segmentation, and SSIM loss, which both aligns the motions and fills in geometry that was occluded in one scene. After the poses are fixed, a separate step fits revolute and prismatic joints between every pair of parts using an ADD distance threshold and builds the final kinematic tree by depth-first search from a chosen root. This separation of geometry from articulation is what the paper credits for scaling to deeper kinematic trees, and it reports that on a seven-joint robot arm the per-joint state errors stay mostly under one degree.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on two observed configurations of the object being enough to determine every joint, and on the supplied part segmentations covering the object's full geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • From two posed scenes with sparse part labels, the pipeline produces a renderer that can synthesize configurations never seen in training, including intermediate joint states.
  • Articulation structure—joint type, axis, and connectivity—is recovered without a prior model, so the same machinery applies to tools, cabinets, and seven-joint robot arms.
  • Because joint estimation is a separate post-processing step, changing the joint model (for example to screw or spherical joints) does not require retraining the splat.
  • Jointly optimizing poses and splat geometry lets each part borrow visual evidence across scenes, so occluded regions of the object get completed automatically.
  • Real-world data collected with sparse manual labels (on the order of tens of images per scene) is enough for qualitative novel-configuration rendering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the two-scene assumption means the method is only as good as the motion captured between the scenes; an object with a joint that barely moves between t=0 and t=1 will have that joint's axis underdetermined, so a natural extension is to add more scenes until every joint has moved enough.
  • Editorial inference: because tree generation is a depth-first pass over accepted pairwise joints, the same pipeline could be extended to closed kinematic loops by replacing the tree builder with a graph solver, which the paper explicitly leaves to future work.
  • Editorial inference: the separation of articulation from geometry suggests a testable upgrade path where part segmentations are produced automatically rather than manually, which would make the whole pipeline nearly label-free while keeping the same cross-scene pose machinery.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. SPLATART is a pipeline that builds articulated 3D Gaussian splat renderers from posed RGB images with part segmentation masks. It first trains per-scene semantic Gaussian splats, then jointly optimizes per-part rigid poses across two observed configurations using a differentiable rendering loss, estimates pairwise revolute and prismatic joint candidates by minimizing an ADD-style distance on part means, assembles a kinematic tree by depth-first search, and renders novel configurations by transforming the canonical part splats. The paper reports quantitative comparisons on the Paris dataset against PARIS and DTA, a qualitative real-world trigger-clamp experiment with sparse segmentations, and experiments on simulated Franka Panda and Fanuc serial-chain manipulators, with joint-state errors for the Panda shown in Table III.

Significance. The proposed decoupling of geometry/pose estimation from articulation estimation is a sensible design and, if properly supported, would be a useful contribution to articulated-object representation for robotics. The paper also targets deeper kinematic chains than most prior work on articulated NeRFs/Gaussian splats, and it evaluates joint predictions against external ground truth (Paris metrics, URDF joint errors), so the pipeline is not circular. The real-world sparse-segmentation demonstration is a valuable qualitative step. However, the current manuscript is not yet publishable: an entire table is empty, the robot-arm evaluation has no comparison baseline and no axis-parameter metrics, the two-scene formulation has an unaddressed identifiability problem, and the reported quantitative results lack error bars. These gaps directly affect the central claims, but they appear fixable within the scope of the paper.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A / III-D] The two-scene formulation makes joints with zero or near-zero relative motion between t=0 and t=1 unidentifiable or ill-conditioned, because the relative part pose is the only cue used to fit the revolute and prismatic candidates. The paper neither states this necessary identifiability condition nor reports the joint displacements used in the Panda and Fanuc experiments. Since the central claim includes rendering arbitrary user-specified configurations for a 7-DOF arm, the authors should add an identifiability analysis and report per-joint motion magnitudes (or add a third observation) to demonstrate that every estimated joint was actually exercised.
  2. [Table II (Section IV-A)] Table II, captioned "Quantitative results for the relative joint states," is empty and is never referenced in the text, so the promised quantitative evaluation of joint-state estimation is missing. This is not a presentation detail: the abstract's claim that "we present data on the SPLATART pipeline as applied to the Paris dataset objects" depends on this table. The authors must either fill the table with the corresponding metrics or remove the claim and revise the text accordingly.
  3. [Section IV-C / Table III] The robot-arm evaluation does not support the strength of the central claim. No comparison to any prior articulated-object method is provided; Table III reports only joint-state errors, not errors in the estimated joint axes or axis positions, which are the quantities needed to support the claim that SPLATART recovers the articulation model. Figure 5 only interpolates the estimated t=0 and t=1 configurations along a one-parameter path, so it does not demonstrate rendering at arbitrary user-specified 7D configurations. Table III also lists 9 joints while the text says "up to seven degrees of freedom"; the authors should clarify the URDF variant and whether the gripper joints are included.
  4. [Table I (Section IV-A)] All quantitative results in Table I are single-run values with no error bars, significance tests, or seed information. Several entries are close to or worse than the DTA baseline (e.g., USB axis angle 4.61 degrees vs 0.11 degrees, fridge CD-m 20.35 mm vs 0.27 mm), so the claim of "results comparable to previous radiance field based efforts" in the conclusion is not statistically supported. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple runs or otherwise justify the stability of the pipeline.
  5. [Section III-B / V] The conclusion's claim that SPLATART works "without a prior knowledge of the object structure" is overstated: the method requires part segmentation masks, which encode the number of parts and part membership, and the problem formulation takes N_p as given. Additionally, no experiment with a branching kinematic tree is reported; all Paris objects are single-DOF two-part objects and the robot arms are serial chains, so the tree-structure generation step (Section III-E) is not validated for branching topologies. The claims should be qualified accordingly or evaluated on a branching object.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are many typos, including "syntheic," "spare" (for "sparse"), "seperation," and "exmaples"; a careful proofread is needed before resubmission.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The loss vector uses "lossrgb" and "lossssim" while Eqs. (1)-(4) define "lossl1" and "lossss"; the notation should be aligned.
  3. [Section III-D] The acceptance threshold epsilon and the loss weights lambda_* are described as user-specified, but their values are not reported anywhere in the manuscript or supplement; these values are needed for reproducibility.
  4. [Table I] The axis-position rows for "Blade" and "Storage" show dashes for PARIS; the authors should explain whether these metrics are undefined or omitted.
  5. [Figure 4] The caption is confusing ("The top set of three rows are the poses for time t=0" in a four-quadrant layout); the panels should be relabeled and explained more clearly.
  6. [References] Reference [19] has no venue information; complete the citation.
  7. [Section IV-B] The real-world clamp experiment is qualitative only; a quantitative metric (e.g., reprojection error or joint-angle error) would strengthen the claim of good real-world geometric and kinematic results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SPLATART's pose and joint estimates are validated against external ground truth; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

SPLATART is an empirical pipeline, not a derivation, and its central quantities are checked against external ground truth rather than being defined in terms of the target. Part poses are optimized against rendering and segmentation losses from posed images (Eqs. 1-5), and joint parameters are subsequently fit to those poses via an ADD matching loss and accepted by a threshold (Section III-D); neither step presupposes the reported URDF joint errors in Table III or the visual quality of the unobserved intermediate configurations in Figure 5. The novel-configuration renderings are generated after training by linearly interpolating the estimated joint values, so they are a genuine extrapolation, not a refit of the same data. The only self-citations (NARF22, NARF24, Pavlasek et al., ProgressLabeller, Cohn et al.) appear in the related-work discussion and as inspiration for pose-based articulation inference; they are not used to justify any uniqueness claim, prior theorem, or model choice on which the results depend. The two-scene identifiability limitation noted for near-zero-motion joints is a real correctness concern, but it is not circularity because the paper's equations do not define the joint estimate in terms of the validation target.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline's central claim rests on several hand-tuned hyperparameters and domain assumptions. The most consequential are the two-scene assumption, the availability of covering part segmentations, and the restriction to tree-structured revolute and prismatic mechanisms. No free parameters are fitted to ground truth in a way that would make the benchmark circular; Paris metrics and URDF joint errors provide external validation. The reported hyperparameters are incomplete, so the ledger should be treated as a lower bound on required tuning.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss weights lambda_acc, lambda_l1, lambda_ssim, lambda_seg = not reported
    Equation (5) states these are 'tuned by hand'; the values are not given in the manuscript.
  • Joint acceptance threshold epsilon = user-specified, value not reported
    Section III-D accepts a joint only if the ADD distance is below a user-specified epsilon; the numeric threshold is not given.
  • Training schedule (iterations, epochs, learning rate) = 20,000 Splatfacto iterations; 20 epochs per scene; learning rate not specified
    Section IV-A.1 states the settings were kept the same across trials, but no values or sensitivity analysis are provided.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Differentiable Gaussian splatting rasterizer and Adam optimizer work as implemented in Splatfacto/NerfStudio
    Section III-B builds on NerfStudio's Splatfacto and cites [20] and [22].
  • domain assumption Input images are posed with known camera poses
    The problem formulation in Section III-A takes camera pose X as given.
  • domain assumption Part segmentation labels are available for at least a subset of images covering the object geometry
    Section III-B requires a subset of labels and asserts coverage of the total geometry.
  • domain assumption Articulated objects are rigid-body part trees with revolute or prismatic joints and no loops
    Section III-D and III-E consider only revolute and prismatic joints and explicitly avoid kinematic loops.
  • domain assumption Two scenes (t=0 and t=1) are sufficient to estimate all part poses and joint parameters
    Section III-A states 'this work assumes only two scenes are present.'
  • domain assumption Part pose optimization converges to the correct local minimum when Gaussian parameters are co-optimized
    Section III-C presents this as a heuristic observation, not a guarantee.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPLATART: Articulated Gaussian Splatting with Estimated Object Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YJJGHNDT

@misc{pith2026250612184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPLATART: Articulated Gaussian Splatting with Estimated Object Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YJJGHNDT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12184}
}
read the original abstract

Representing articulated objects remains a difficult problem within the field of robotics. Objects such as pliers, clamps, or cabinets require representations that capture not only geometry and color information, but also part seperation, connectivity, and joint parametrization. Furthermore, learning these representations becomes even more difficult with each additional degree of freedom. Complex articulated objects such as robot arms may have seven or more degrees of freedom, and the depth of their kinematic tree may be notably greater than the tools, drawers, and cabinets that are the typical subjects of articulated object research. To address these concerns, we introduce SPLATART - a pipeline for learning Gaussian splat representations of articulated objects from posed images, of which a subset contains image space part segmentations. SPLATART disentangles the part separation task from the articulation estimation task, allowing for post-facto determination of joint estimation and representation of articulated objects with deeper kinematic trees than previously exhibited. In this work, we present data on the SPLATART pipeline as applied to the syntheic Paris dataset objects, and qualitative results on a real-world object under spare segmentation supervision. We additionally present on articulated serial chain manipulators to demonstrate usage on deeper kinematic tree structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12184 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SPLATART is a pipeline which produces articulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An Overview of the SPLATART Pipeline which takes as input posed images and segmentations of articulated objects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Renderings of the articulated objects within the PARIS dataset while being swept from the learned starting to ending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 6 novel scenes synthesized with our method, overlaid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Renderings of serial chain manipulators from the URDF files Dataset showing SPLATART’s ability to extract poses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Renderings of the Panda arm as it moves through intermediate states that were unobserved during training. The top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Paris: Part-level reconstruc- tion and motion analysis for articulated objects,

    J. Liu, A. Mahdavi-Amiri, and M. Savva, “Paris: Part-level reconstruc- tion and motion analysis for articulated objects,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 352– 363, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Label fusion: A pipeline for generating ground truth labels for real rgbd data of cluttered scenes,

    P. Marion, P. R. Florence, L. Manuelli, and R. Tedrake, “Label fusion: A pipeline for generating ground truth labels for real rgbd data of cluttered scenes,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3235–3242, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Progress- labeller: Visual data stream annotation for training object-centric 3d perception,

    X. Chen, H. Zhang, Z. Yu, S. Lewis, and O. C. Jenkins, “Progress- labeller: Visual data stream annotation for training object-centric 3d perception,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 13066–13073, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  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

    work page 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]

    Narf22: Neural articulated radiance fields for configuration-aware rendering,

    S. Lewis, J. Pavlasek, and O. C. Jenkins, “Narf22: Neural articulated radiance fields for configuration-aware rendering,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 770–777, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Graspsplats: Efficient manipulation with 3d feature splatting,

    M. Ji, R.-Z. Qiu, X. Zou, and X. Wang, “Graspsplats: Efficient manipulation with 3d feature splatting,” in8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning

    work page

  8. [8]

    Sapien: A simulated part-based interactive environment,

    F. Xiang, Y . Qin, K. Mo, Y . Xia, H. Zhu, F. Liu, M. Liu, H. Jiang, Y . Yuan, H. Wang,et al., “Sapien: A simulated part-based interactive environment,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition, pp. 11097–11107, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Neural implicit representation for building digital twins of unknown articulated objects,

    Y . Weng, B. Wen, J. Tremblay, V . Blukis, D. Fox, L. Guibas, and S. Birchfield, “Neural implicit representation for building digital twins of unknown articulated objects,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3141– 3150, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Understanding urdf: A dataset and analysis,

    D. Tola and P. Corke, “Understanding urdf: A dataset and analysis,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4479–4486, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    A probabilistic framework for learning kinematic models of articulated objects,

    J. Sturm, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “A probabilistic framework for learning kinematic models of articulated objects,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 41, pp. 477–526, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Topologically-informed atlas learning,

    T. Cohn, N. Devraj, and O. C. Jenkins, “Topologically-informed atlas learning,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3598–3604, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Parts-based articulated object localization in clutter using belief propagation,

    J. Pavlasek, S. Lewis, K. Desingh, and O. C. Jenkins, “Parts-based articulated object localization in clutter using belief propagation,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 10595–10602, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  6. [15]

    Cla-nerf: Category-level articulated neural radiance field,

    W.-C. Tseng, H.-J. Liao, L. Yen-Chen, and M. Sun, “Cla-nerf: Category-level articulated neural radiance field,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 8454–8460, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  7. [16]

    Real2code: Re- construct articulated objects via code generation,

    Z. Mandi, Y . Weng, D. Bauer, and S. Song, “Real2code: Re- construct articulated objects via code generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08474, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Urdformer: Constructing interactive realistic scenes from real im- ages via simulation and generative modeling,

    Q. Chen, M. Memmel, A. Fang, A. Walsman, D. Fox, and A. Gupta, “Urdformer: Constructing interactive realistic scenes from real im- ages via simulation and generative modeling,” inTowards Gener- alist Robots: Learning Paradigms for Scalable Skill Acquisition@ CoRL2023, 2023

    2023

  9. [18]

    Gart: Gaus- sian articulated template models,

    J. Lei, Y . Wang, G. Pavlakos, L. Liu, and K. Daniilidis, “Gart: Gaus- sian articulated template models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 19876–19887, June 2024

    2024

  10. [19]

    Building interactable replicas of complex ar-ticulated objects via gaussian splatting,

    Y . Liu, B. Jia, R. Lu, and J. Ni, “Building interactable replicas of complex ar-ticulated objects via gaussian splatting,”

  11. [20]

    Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development,

    M. Tancik, E. Weber, E. Ng, R. Li, B. Yi, J. Kerr, T. Wang, A. Kristoffersen, J. Austin, K. Salahi,et al., “Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04264, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Phys- gaussian: Physics-integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics,

    T. Xie, Z. Zong, Y . Qiu, X. Li, Y . Feng, Y . Yang, and C. Jiang, “Phys- gaussian: Physics-integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4389–4398, 2024

    2024

  13. [22]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,”IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  15. [24]

    Parallel inversion of neural radiance fields for robust pose estimation,

    Y . Lin, T. M ¨uller, J. Tremblay, B. Wen, S. Tyree, A. Evans, P. A. Vela, and S. Birchfield, “Parallel inversion of neural radiance fields for robust pose estimation,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 9377–9384, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  16. [25]

    Model based training, detection and pose estimation of texture-less 3d objects in heavily cluttered scenes,

    S. Hinterstoisser, V . Lepetit, S. Ilic, S. Holzer, G. Bradski, K. Konolige, and N. Navab, “Model based training, detection and pose estimation of texture-less 3d objects in heavily cluttered scenes,” inComputer Vision – ACCV 2012(K. M. Lee, Y . Matsushita, J. M. Rehg, and Z. ...

    2012

  17. [26]

    Multiscan: Scalable rgbd scanning for 3d environments with articulated objects,

    Y . Mao, Y . Zhang, H. Jiang, A. Chang, and M. Savva, “Multiscan: Scalable rgbd scanning for 3d environments with articulated objects,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 9058– 9071, 2022

    2022

  18. [27]

    Record3d

    M. Simonik, “Record3d.”https://record3d.app/, 2024. Ver- sion 1.10.2, Mobile app for iOS

    2024

  19. [28]

    Roboflow (version 1.0) [soft- ware]

    B. Dwyer, J. Nelson, and T. Hansen, “Roboflow (version 1.0) [soft- ware].”https://roboflow.com, 2024. computer vision

    2024

  20. [29]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo,et al., “Segment anything,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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