Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 95 references

4Real-Video-V2: Fused View-Time Attention and Feedforward Reconstruction for 4D Scene Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims 4D scene generation can be entirely feedforward: one masked self-attention layer fuses view and time with no new parameters, and a feedforward network lifts the multi-view videos into dynamic Gaussian splats.

desk verdict Fused view-time attention is a real architectural idea, and the reconstruction stage is actually the stronger half; but the headline architecture comparison runs too short to be convincing, and one static-NVS claim overstates the table. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18839 v1 pith:DK4DZ6DN submitted 2025-06-18 cs.CV

Chaoyang Wang , Ashkan Mirzaei , Vidit Goel , Willi Menapace , Aliaksandr Siarohin , Avalon Vinella , Michael Vasilkovsky , Ivan Skorokhodov
show 4 more authors
Vladislav Shakhrai Sergey Korolev Sergey Tulyakov Peter Wonka
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 4Dvideogenerationmulti-viewfusedview-timeattentionmaskedself-attentionfeedforwardreconstruction3DGaussiansplattingtext-to-4Ddynamicscene
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 claims that 4D scene generation—a synchronized grid of videos from multiple viewpoints over time—can be run entirely with feedforward models, bypassing slow per-scene optimization. For the video stage, it argues that the right way to add multi-view consistency to a pretrained video diffusion transformer is to fuse cross-view and cross-time attention into a single masked self-attention layer with no additional parameters, instead of applying the two attentions sequentially or in parallel with a learned synchronization module. For the reconstruction stage, it extends a feedforward 3D reconstruction model to dynamic scenes by predicting camera parameters together with time-varying Gaussian splats, so the generated frames are lifted to an explicit 4D representation in seconds. If right, this is the first fully feedforward text-to-4D pipeline and improves on prior multi-view video generation in both visual quality and view-time consistency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fused masked self-attention layer of Eq. (1): $$M(\mathrm{Idx}(v_q,t_q,x_q,y_q),\mathrm{Idx}(v_k,t_k,x_k,y_k))=1 \text{ if } v_q=v_k \text{ or } t_q=t_k, \ 0 \text{ otherwise},$$ with output $\mathrm{SoftMax}(M\odot QK^\top/\sqrt{d})V$. The mask lets every token exchange information with all tokens sharing its viewpoint (the cross-time direction) and all tokens sharing its timestamp (the cross-view direction) in a single attention operation, so no new parameters are introduced and only the attention layers need fine-tuning. The mask is sparse—each token interacts only with tokens in its own view or its own time—so the FlexAttention implementation runs at sparsity $1-(T+V)/(TV)$. The reconstruction side is carried by three additions to the VGGT backbone: a Gaussian head predicting opacity, scale, rotation, color offset, and a small centroid refinement; camera-token replacement that forces every timestep to use the first timestep's predicted cameras; and zero-initialized temporal attention layers that connect tokens across time without perturbing the pretrained model at initialization.

What would settle it

Train the sequential and parallel architectures under the identical recipe but for a longer schedule (for example, the progressive schedule used for the final fused model) and compare PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on the same Objaverse and NVIDIA Dynamic evaluation sets. If either alternative reaches or exceeds the fused model's scores, the paper's central architectural claim—that fused view-time attention is superior—collapses. A second check would be to replace the predicted cameras in the reconstruction stage with ground-truth cameras and measure whether the dynamic novel-view gap to baselines vanishes, which would show whether the camera-token replacement rather than the Gaussian head is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a pretrained video diffusion transformer can be fine-tuned for synchronized multi-view video generation by changing only its attention mask, not by adding cross-view modules. In the proposed fused view-time attention, every token attends to all tokens that share either the same viewpoint or the same timestamp, and attention between tokens differing in both view and time is masked out; equation (1) writes this as $M(\mathrm{Idx}(v_q,t_q,x_q,y_q),\mathrm{Idx}(v_k,t_k,x_k,y_k))=1$ when $v_q=v_k$ or $t_q=t_k$ and $0$ otherwise. With an 11B-parameter DiT backbone fine-tuned for 4,000 iterations at batch size 96, this model reaches PSNR 22.49 on Objaverse and 23.15 on the NVIDIA Dynamic Dataset, compared with 21.40 and 22.92 for the parallel architecture and 5.935 and 22.74 for the sequential one, and it outperforms SV4D on Objaverse. The paper further claims that the generated frame grids lift to explicit 4D content by a feedforward reconstruction model that extends VGGT with a Gaussian head, camera-token replacement to share one camera set across timesteps, and zero-initialized temporal attention; this model predicts cameras and Gaussian splats from RGB frames alone, and it beats feedforward baselines on static and dynamic novel-view benchmarks without per-scene scale tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central architectural claim rests on an architecture comparison run for only 4,000 training iterations; if the sequential or parallel designs merely converge more slowly, a longer training run could reverse the ranking and the main contribution would no longer be supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Text-to-4D generation becomes a two-stage feedforward pipeline: one diffusion pass produces the synchronized multi-view video grid, and one reconstruction pass produces Gaussian splats that can be rendered in real time.
  • Because the fused attention adds no parameters, the 4D model inherits the generalization and resolution range of the 11B-parameter base video model, including generalization to resolutions and durations beyond training.
  • The sparse attention mask cuts the attention cost from full $O((VTHW)^2)$ to a pattern with sparsity $1-(T+V)/(TV)$, making 8-view, 61-frame generation feasible on a single A100 GPU in about four minutes.
  • The reconstruction model removes the need for input camera poses and per-scene scale search, which prior feedforward baselines required, and improves dynamic novel-view synthesis on the Neural3DVideo benchmark.
  • Ablations show that both camera-token replacement and temporal attention contribute to reconstruction quality, and that removing the 2D-transformed-video training data degrades generation consistency, so each component is load-bearing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the fused-attention recipe transfers to any DiT-based video model: because it changes only the attention mask and adds no parameters, the same fine-tuning schedule could push higher-resolution or longer-context backbones into 4D generators with little redesign.
  • The camera-token replacement trick suggests a general recipe for upgrading pose-free static reconstruction models to dynamic input—fix cameras to the first timestep and insert zero-initialized temporal attention—which could be tested on other reconstruction backbones.
  • A testable extension is to condition the diffusion model on explicit camera poses as an alternative to freeze-time reference videos; the paper deliberately avoids pose conditioning, so it is unknown whether explicit poses would improve multi-view accuracy or merely duplicate what the references already provide.
  • If the feedforward reconstruction generalizes as the benchmarks suggest, per-scene optimization methods for 4D could be displaced for speed-critical uses, though the paper's own limitation section notes that full 360-degree coverage and layering-free splats remain open, so optimization may persist where those matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a two-stage text-to-4D generation framework. The first stage is a diffusion transformer that generates synchronized multi-view video grids by fusing cross-view and cross-time attention into a single masked self-attention layer (Eq. 1) with no additional parameters, replacing the sequential or parallel attention designs used by prior work. The second stage extends VGGT with a Gaussian head, camera-token replacement, and temporal attention to predict time-varying 3D Gaussian splats and camera parameters directly from the generated frames. Experiments compare the fused attention against sequential and parallel baselines, evaluate the reconstruction model on static (Tanks & Temples, LLFF) and dynamic (Neural3DVideo) novel view synthesis benchmarks, and report ablations for the reconstruction components and the training data. The paper claims the first fully feedforward text-to-4D pipeline and state-of-the-art 4D generation quality.

Significance. The proposed design is simple and parameter-efficient, and if the experimental claims hold, it would be a meaningful step toward scalable feedforward text-to-4D generation. The masked-attention formulation is clean, the use of FlexAttention to exploit sparsity is sensible, and the second-stage contributions (camera-token replacement, temporal attention, and a Gaussian head on VGGT) are well-motivated and supported by ablations showing that each component helps. The runtime/memory table in Appendix C is a useful strength, as is the pose-free evaluation of the reconstruction model on dynamic scenes. The main uncertainties are the architecture comparison in Sec. 4.1, which rests on a short training run and may not isolate architectural capacity from convergence speed, and the incomplete set of pose-free baselines in the static NVS evaluation. With additional convergence analysis and a more complete baseline set, the paper's central claims could be established; as it stands, the paper is a solid empirical contribution with somewhat overreaching state-of-the-art phrasing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Table 2, Appendix B] The central claim that fused view-time attention is superior to sequential and parallel architectures rests on a single comparison at 4,000 training iterations, with no convergence curves, no repeated seeds, and no per-scene breakdown. The Objaverse PSNR of the sequential architecture (5.935) versus the parallel (21.40) and fused (22.49) values is the signature of an undertrained model rather than a settled architectural ranking. Because the fused model only fine-tunes existing self-attention layers while the other two variants train new cross-view or synchronization modules, a fixed 4k-iteration budget conflates architectural capacity with convergence speed. Appendix B also states that after 4,000 iterations the model is switched to 61-frame sequences and fine-tuned for another 2,000 iterations, so it is unclear whether Table 2 reports the 4k checkpoint or a later one. Please report PSNR/LPIPS curves for all three variants at matched budgets (including 6k, 8k, and beyond), clarify exactly which checkpoint is in Table 2, and provide per-scene results or error bars for the small Objaverse (19 assets) and NVIDIA (9 scenes) evaluation sets.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Table 4, Sec. 2] The static novel-view-synthesis evaluation does not include several recent pose-free feedforward methods that the paper itself cites in Sec. 2, namely FLARE [71], NoPoSplat [72], PF3Plat [73], and MVSplat360 [65]. The only pose-free baseline that appears, Splatt3r, is evaluated with 2 input views while the proposed method uses 4 or 16, which makes the reported margin less informative. The conclusion that the reconstruction stage 'outperforms the baselines' is therefore narrower than the abstract's 'new state of the art for 4D generation' claim. Please add comparisons against those pose-free methods at matching input-view counts, or temper the state-of-the-art phrasing to the evaluated baselines.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Table 3, Fig. 5] The comparison on the generated-video dataset relies on ad hoc adaptations of several baselines: ReCamMaster-V1 keeps only the second half of a pseudo-static video, ReCamMaster-V2 generates freeze-time videos independently per timestep, and SynCamMaster is evaluated with text conditioning because its released code does not support frame conditioning. These adaptations may systematically disadvantage those methods, and the main text does not state whether the reference fixed-view and freeze-time inputs are identical across all methods. Please provide a precise description of the conditioning protocol used for each baseline and, where possible, equalize the information available to each method.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are typos and formatting glitches: 'protocal' should be 'protocol' (Sec. 4.1), 'showin' should be 'shown' (Sec. 4.1), 'severallimitations' should be 'several limitations' (Sec. 5), and Appendix B repeats the headings 'Training Data Composition' and 'Training Setup'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1)] The prose describes the attention pattern as 'same frame, at the same timestamp, or from the same viewpoint,' but the equation only states v_q = v_k OR t_q = t_k; the same-frame case is the intersection of the two conditions. Please make this explicit so readers do not misread the mask as excluding spatial attention within a frame.
  3. [Table 4] The 'Manual Scale' column is not defined in the caption. Please state that 'Yes' means a per-scene grid search over the scene-scale parameter and 'No' means the method's default scale was used.
  4. [Reproducibility] The paper does not mention code or model release; given the scale of the 11B-parameter base model and the number of implementation details only in the appendix, releasing the code or providing explicit initialization checkpoints for the three architecture variants would greatly strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fused-attention design and the feedforward reconstruction are tested against external and reimplemented baselines on held-out data; author-overlap citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical rather than derivational. Eq. (1) defines a masked self-attention mask, and its superiority over sequential/parallel architectures is supported by Table 2, which compares author reimplementations under identical settings on Objaverse and NVIDIA Dynamic data, alongside external baselines such as SV4D. The reconstruction stage is evaluated on held-out static and dynamic benchmarks (Tanks & Temples, LLFF, Neural3DVideo) against GSLRM, BTimer, and Splatt3r, with the authors' model additionally predicting cameras, making the comparison harder rather than fitted. No parameter is fitted to a target metric and then renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to forbid alternatives. The author-overlapping citations, 4Real-Video [15] and BTimer [79], serve as a baseline and as a hyperparameter source respectively, and neither carries the fused-attention or reconstruction claims. Appendix B's note that fine-tuning continues for 2,000 iterations after the 4,000-iteration checkpoint introduces an ambiguity in the reported schedule, and the 4k-iteration comparison is a legitimate convergence-fairness concern, but these are correctness risks, not circular reductions. Under the stated hard rules, self-citation without load-bearing role and short-horizon comparisons do not constitute circularity.

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

The ledger entries are standard training hyperparameters and design choices, not constants fitted to the evaluation benchmarks. The learned weights of the diffusion and reconstruction models are trained on training splits only. No ad hoc constant is introduced to force the reported results.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_LPIPS = not stated
    Weight of the LPIPS term in the reconstruction loss L_recon = L_MSE + lambda_LPIPS * L_LPIPS (Sec. 3.2). Chosen by hand; value not reported.
  • training_iterations_video_model = 4000 + 2000
    Number of fine-tuning iterations for the 4D video model (Sec. 3.1, Appendix B). Hand-chosen schedule; the architecture comparison is done at 4k iterations.
  • source_views = 4
    Number of source views used in reconstruction training (Sec. 3.2). A design choice that affects reconstruction quality.
  • grid_size_for_4d_video_training = 8 views, 29/61 frames
    Grid size used for training and evaluation of the 4D video model (Appendix B). This is a hyperparameter, not a fitted constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Homographic transformations of real 2D videos approximate synchronized multi-view captures well enough to teach view consistency
    Used as a key training data augmentation (Sec. 3.1, 'Training'); the ablation shows removing it hurts, but the underlying assumption that a 2D warp is a valid proxy for true viewpoint change is not proven.
  • domain assumption VGGT's frozen geometry and camera priors generalize to synthetic and generated 4D video frames
    The reconstruction model keeps VGGT frozen and relies on its depth and camera predictions for generated RGB frames (Sec. 3.2). If VGGT degrades on out-of-distribution generated imagery, reconstruction quality falls.
  • ad hoc to paper A single 4,000-iteration training run is sufficient to compare attention architectures fairly
    Table 2 compares architectures at 4k iterations; the sequential result (PSNR 5.9) suggests under-training, so the comparison assumes convergence behavior does not reverse the ranking with more compute.
  • domain assumption Temporal compression along the time axis, not the view axis, is the right choice for reconstruction quality
    Stated in Sec. 3.1 'Temporally compressed latents'; the paper asserts densely sampled viewpoints offer limited benefit to reconstruction, but does not ablate this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 4Real-Video-V2: Fused View-Time Attention and Feedforward Reconstruction for 4D Scene Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DK4DZ6DN

@misc{pith2026250618839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 4Real-Video-V2: Fused View-Time Attention and Feedforward Reconstruction for 4D Scene Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DK4DZ6DN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18839}
}
read the original abstract

We propose the first framework capable of computing a 4D spatio-temporal grid of video frames and 3D Gaussian particles for each time step using a feed-forward architecture. Our architecture has two main components, a 4D video model and a 4D reconstruction model. In the first part, we analyze current 4D video diffusion architectures that perform spatial and temporal attention either sequentially or in parallel within a two-stream design. We highlight the limitations of existing approaches and introduce a novel fused architecture that performs spatial and temporal attention within a single layer. The key to our method is a sparse attention pattern, where tokens attend to others in the same frame, at the same timestamp, or from the same viewpoint. In the second part, we extend existing 3D reconstruction algorithms by introducing a Gaussian head, a camera token replacement algorithm, and additional dynamic layers and training. Overall, we establish a new state of the art for 4D generation, improving both visual quality and reconstruction capability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18839 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method enables the creation of 4D scenes from a text prompt by combining a diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our 4D video model supports input types including: (a) a fixed-view video, (b) a freeze-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We analyze three architectures for 4D video generation: (a) sequential cross-view and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our feedforward reconstruction model. Built on top of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of 4D video generation methods. Each image includes a temporal slice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color and depth renderings of Gaussians produced by inputting our generated 4D video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of our feedforward reconstruction model with the baselines on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [71]

    Flare: Feed-forward geometry, appearance and camera estimation from uncalibrated sparse views.CVPR, 2025

    Shangzhan Zhang, Jianyuan Wang, Yinghao Xu, Nan Xue, Christian Rupprecht, Xiaowei Zhou, Yujun Shen, and Gordon Wetzstein. Flare: Feed-forward geometry, appearance and camera estimation from uncalibrated sparse views.CVPR, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [72]

    No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images.ICLR, 2025

    Botao Ye, Sifei Liu, Haofei Xu, Li Xueting, Marc Pollefeys, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Peng Songyou. No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images.ICLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [73]

    Pf3plat: Pose-free feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting.ICML, 2025

    Sunghwan Hong, Jaewoo Jung, Heeseong Shin, Jisang Han, Jiaolong Yang, Chong Luo, and Seungryong Kim. Pf3plat: Pose-free feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting.ICML, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [65]

    Mvsplat360: Feed-forward 360 scene synthesis from sparse views

    Yuedong Chen, Chuanxia Zheng, Haofei Xu, Bohan Zhuang, Andrea Vedaldi, Tat-Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. Mvsplat360: Feed-forward 360 scene synthesis from sparse views. 2024

    2024

  5. [1]

    Controlling space and time with diffusion models.ICLR, 2025

    Daniel Watson, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and David J Fleet. Controlling space and time with diffusion models.ICLR, 2025

    2025

  6. [2]

    Barron, and Aleksander Holynski

    Rundi Wu, Ruiqi Gao, Ben Poole, Alex Trevithick, Changxi Zheng, Jonathan T. Barron, and Aleksander Holynski. CAT4D: Create Anything in 4D with Multi-View Video Diffusion Models. 2024

    2024

  7. [3]

    Genxd: Generating any 3d and 4d scenes.ICLR, 2025

    Yuyang Zhao, Chung-Ching Lin, Kevin Lin, Zhiwen Yan, Linjie Li, Zhengyuan Yang, Jianfeng Wang, Gim Hee Lee, and Lijuan Wang. Genxd: Generating any 3d and 4d scenes.ICLR, 2025

    2025

  8. [4]

    Dimensionx: Create any 3d and 4d scenes from a single image with controllable video diffusion

    Wenqiang Sun, Shuo Chen, Fangfu Liu, Zilong Chen, Yueqi Duan, Jun Zhang, and Yikai Wang. Dimensionx: Create any 3d and 4d scenes from a single image with controllable video diffusion. 2024. 5

    2024

Show all 95 references
  1. [5]

    Gen3c: 3d-informed world- consistent video generation with precise camera control

    Xuanchi Ren, Tianchang Shen, Jiahui Huang, Huan Ling, Yifan Lu, Merlin Nimier-David, Thomas Müller, Alexander Keller, Sanja Fidler, and Jun Gao. Gen3c: 3d-informed world- consistent video generation with precise camera control. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  2. [6]

    Trajectorycrafter: Redirecting camera trajectory for monocular videos via diffusion models, 2025

    Mark YU, Wenbo Hu, Jinbo Xing, and Ying Shan. Trajectorycrafter: Redirecting camera trajectory for monocular videos via diffusion models, 2025

    2025

  3. [7]

    Generative camera dolly: Extreme monocular dynamic novel view synthesis

    Basile Van Hoorick, Rundi Wu, Ege Ozguroglu, Kyle Sargent, Ruoshi Liu, Pavel Tokmakov, Achal Dave, Changxi Zheng, and Carl V ondrick. Generative camera dolly: Extreme monocular dynamic novel view synthesis. InECCV, 2024

    2024

  4. [8]

    Recammaster: Camera-controlled generative rendering from a single video, 2025

    Jianhong Bai, Menghan Xia, Xiao Fu, Xintao Wang, Lianrui Mu, Jinwen Cao, Zuozhu Liu, Haoji Hu, Xiang Bai, Pengfei Wan, and Di Zhang. Recammaster: Camera-controlled generative rendering from a single video, 2025

    2025

  5. [9]

    Wetzstein

    Zhengfei Kuang, Shengqu Cai, Hao He, Yinghao Xu, Hongsheng Li, Leonidas Guibas, and Gordon. Wetzstein. Collaborative video diffusion: Consistent multi-video generation with camera control. 2024

    2024

  6. [10]

    Human4dit: Free-view human video generation with 4d diffusion transformer

    Ruizhi Shao, Youxin Pang, Zerong Zheng, Jingxiang Sun, and Yebin Liu. Human4dit: Free-view human video generation with 4d diffusion transformer. 2024

    2024

  7. [11]

    Vivid-zoo: Multi-view video generation with diffusion model, 2024

    Bing Li, Cheng Zheng, Wenxuan Zhu, Jinjie Mai, Biao Zhang, Peter Wonka, and Bernard Ghanem. Vivid-zoo: Multi-view video generation with diffusion model, 2024

    2024

  8. [12]

    4diffusion: Multi-view video diffusion model for 4d generation

    Haiyu Zhang, Xinyuan Chen, Yaohui Wang, Xihui Liu, Yunhong Wang, and Yu Qiao. 4diffusion: Multi-view video diffusion model for 4d generation. 2024

    2024

  9. [13]

    Sv4d: Dynamic 3d content generation with multi-frame and multi-view consistency

    Yiming Xie, Chun-Han Yao, Vikram V oleti, Huaizu Jiang, and Varun Jampani. Sv4d: Dynamic 3d content generation with multi-frame and multi-view consistency. 2024

    2024

  10. [14]

    Syncammaster: Synchronizing multi-camera video generation from diverse viewpoints, 2024

    Jianhong Bai, Menghan Xia, Xintao Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiao Fu, Zuozhu Liu, Haoji Hu, Pengfei Wan, and Di Zhang. Syncammaster: Synchronizing multi-camera video generation from diverse viewpoints, 2024

    2024

  11. [15]

    4real-video: Learning generalizable photo-realistic 4d video diffusion, 2024

    Chaoyang Wang, Peiye Zhuang, Tuan Duc Ngo, Willi Menapace, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Michael Vasilkovsky, Ivan Skorokhodov, Sergey Tulyakov, Peter Wonka, and Hsin-Ying Lee. 4real-video: Learning generalizable photo-realistic 4d video diffusion, 2024

    2024

  12. [16]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. 2024

    2024

  13. [17]

    Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models

    Ang Wang, Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, Jianxiao Yang, Jianyuan Zeng, Jiayu Wang, Jingfeng Zhang, Jingren Zhou, Jinkai Wang, Jixuan Chen, Kai Zhu, Kang Zhao, Keyu Yan, Lianghua Huang, Mengyang Feng, Ningyi Zhang, Pandeng Li, Pin...

    2025

  14. [18]

    Step-video-ti2v technical report: A state-of-the-art text-driven image-to-video generation model, 2025

    Haoyang Huang, Guoqing Ma, Nan Duan, Xing Chen, Changyi Wan, Ranchen Ming, Tianyu Wang, Bo Wang, Zhiying Lu, Aojie Li, Xianfang Zeng, Xinhao Zhang, Gang Yu, Yuhe Yin, Qiling Wu, Wen Sun, Kang An, Xin Han, Deshan Sun, Wei Ji, Bizhu Huang, Brian Li, Chenfei Wu, Guanzhe Huang, Hu...

    2025

  15. [19]

    Sampson, Shikai Li, Simone Parmeggiani, Steve Fine, Tara Fowler, Vladan Petrovic, and Yuming Du

    Adam Polyak, Amit Zohar, Andrew Brown, Andros Tjandra, Animesh Sinha, Ann Lee, Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Chih-Yao Ma, Ching-Yao Chuang, David Yan, Dhruv Choudhary, Dingkang Wang, Geet Sethi, Guan Pang, Haoyu Ma, Ishan Misra, Ji Hou, Jialiang Wang, Kiran Ja- gadeesh, Kunpeng Li, ...

    2024

  16. [20]

    Veo-Team:, Agrim Gupta, Ali Razavi, Andeep Toor, Ankush Gupta, Dumitru Erhan, Eleni Shaw, Eric Lau, Frank Belletti, Gabe Barth-Maron, Gregory Shaw, Hakan Erdogan, Hakim Sidahmed, Henna Nandwani, Hernan Moraldo, Hyunjik Kim, Irina Blok, Jeff Donahue, José Lezama, Kory Mathewson...

    2024

  17. [21]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoor- thi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 2021

    2021

  18. [22]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ToG, 2023

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ToG, 2023

    2023

  19. [23]

    Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer

    Jianyuan Wang, Minghao Chen, Nikita Karaev, Andrea Vedaldi, Christian Rupprecht, and David Novotny. Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  20. [24]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  21. [25]

    Pro- lificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Pro- lificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation. InNeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  22. [26]

    Score jacobian chaining: Lifting pretrained 2d diffusion models for 3d generation

    Haochen Wang, Xiaodan Du, Jiahao Li, Raymond A Yeh, and Greg Shakhnarovich. Score jacobian chaining: Lifting pretrained 2d diffusion models for 3d generation. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  23. [27]

    Fantasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high-quality text-to-3d content creation

    Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fantasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high-quality text-to-3d content creation. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  24. [28]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  25. [29]

    Hifa: High-fidelity text-to-3d with advanced diffusion guidance

    Joseph Zhu and Peiye Zhuang. Hifa: High-fidelity text-to-3d with advanced diffusion guidance. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  26. [30]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InCVPR, 2022

    2022

  27. [31]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding.NeurIPS, 2022

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding.NeurIPS, 2022. 7

    2022

  28. [32]

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

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

    2023

  29. [33]

    Mvdream: Multi- view diffusion for 3d generation

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi- view diffusion for 3d generation. InICLR, 2024

    2024

  30. [34]

    4d-fy: Text-to-4d generation using hybrid score distillation sampling

    Sherwin Bahmani, Ivan Skorokhodov, Victor Rong, Gordon Wetzstein, Leonidas Guibas, Peter Wonka, Sergey Tulyakov, Jeong Joon Park, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and David B Lindell. 4d-fy: Text-to-4d generation using hybrid score distillation sampling. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  31. [35]

    Align your gaussians: Text-to-4d with dynamic 3d gaussians and composed diffusion models

    Huan Ling, Seung Wook Kim, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your gaussians: Text-to-4d with dynamic 3d gaussians and composed diffusion models. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  32. [36]

    Consistent4d: Consistent 360 {\deg}dynamic object generation from monocular video

    Yanqin Jiang, Li Zhang, Jin Gao, Weimin Hu, and Yao Yao. Consistent4d: Consistent 360 {\deg}dynamic object generation from monocular video. 2023

    2023

  33. [37]

    Dreamgaussian4d: Generative 4d gaussian splatting

    Jiawei Ren, Liang Pan, Jiaxiang Tang, Chi Zhang, Ang Cao, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. Dreamgaussian4d: Generative 4d gaussian splatting. 2023

    2023

  34. [38]

    4dgen: Grounded 4d content generation with spatial-temporal consistency

    Yuyang Yin, Dejia Xu, Zhangyang Wang, Yao Zhao, and Yunchao Wei. 4dgen: Grounded 4d content generation with spatial-temporal consistency. 2023

    2023

  35. [39]

    Ani- mate124: Animating one image to 4d dynamic scene

    Yuyang Zhao, Zhiwen Yan, Enze Xie, Lanqing Hong, Zhenguo Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Ani- mate124: Animating one image to 4d dynamic scene. 2023

    2023

  36. [40]

    Text-to-4d dynamic scene generation

    Uriel Singer, Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Oron Ashual, Iurii Makarov, Filippos Kokkinos, Naman Goyal, Andrea Vedaldi, Devi Parikh, Justin Johnson, et al. Text-to-4d dynamic scene generation. 2023

    2023

  37. [41]

    4real: Towards photorealistic 4d scene generation via video diffusion models

    Heng Yu, Chaoyang Wang, Peiye Zhuang, Willi Menapace, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Junli Cao, Laszlo A Jeni, Sergey Tulyakov, and Hsin-Ying Lee. 4real: Towards photorealistic 4d scene generation via video diffusion models. InNeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  38. [42]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. 2023

    2023

  39. [43]

    Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J Fleet, et al. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models. 2022

    2022

  40. [44]

    Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high-quality video generation

    Haoxin Chen, Menghan Xia, Yingqing He, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Shaoshu Yang, Jinbo Xing, Yaofang Liu, Qifeng Chen, Xintao Wang, Chao Weng, and Ying Shan. Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high-quality video generation. 2023

    2023

  41. [45]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  42. [46]

    Video generation models as world simulators, 2024

    OpenAI. Video generation models as world simulators, 2024

    2024

  43. [47]

    Snap video: Scaled spatiotemporal transformers for text-to-video synthesis

    Willi Menapace, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Ivan Skorokhodov, Ekaterina Deyneka, Tsai-Shien Chen, Anil Kag, Yuwei Fang, Aleksei Stoliar, Elisa Ricci, Jian Ren, et al. Snap video: Scaled spatiotemporal transformers for text-to-video synthesis. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  44. [48]

    Vd3d: Taming large video diffusion transformers for 3d camera control

    Sherwin Bahmani, Ivan Skorokhodov, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Willi Menapace, Guocheng Qian, Michael Vasilkovsky, Hsin-Ying Lee, Chaoyang Wang, Jiaxu Zou, Andrea Tagliasacchi, et al. Vd3d: Taming large video diffusion transformers for 3d camera control. 2024

    2024

  45. [49]

    Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation

    Zhouxia Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xintao Wang, Yaowei Li, Tianshui Chen, Menghan Xia, Ping Luo, and Ying Shan. Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation. InSIGGRAPH, 2024. 8

    2024

  46. [50]

    Cameractrl: Enabling camera control for text-to-video generation

    Hao He, Yinghao Xu, Yuwei Guo, Gordon Wetzstein, Bo Dai, Hongsheng Li, and Ceyuan Yang. Cameractrl: Enabling camera control for text-to-video generation. 2024

    2024

  47. [51]

    Direct-a-video: Customized video generation with user-directed camera movement and object motion

    Shiyuan Yang, Liang Hou, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, Xiaodong Chen, and Jing Liao. Direct-a-video: Customized video generation with user-directed camera movement and object motion. InSIGGRAPH, 2024

    2024

  48. [52]

    Camco: Camera-controllable 3d-consistent image-to-video generation

    Dejia Xu, Weili Nie, Chao Liu, Sifei Liu, Jan Kautz, Zhangyang Wang, and Arash Vahdat. Camco: Camera-controllable 3d-consistent image-to-video generation. 2024

    2024

  49. [53]

    Freevs: Generative view synthesis on free driving trajectory

    Qitai Wang, Lue Fan, Yuqi Wang, Yuntao Chen, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Freevs: Generative view synthesis on free driving trajectory. 2024

    2024

  50. [54]

    Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval

    Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Gül Varol, and Andrew Zisserman. Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval. InICCV, 2021

    2021

  51. [55]

    Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images

    Richard Tucker and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images. InToG, 2018

    2018

  52. [56]

    Instantsplat: Sparse-view gaussian splatting in seconds, 2024

    Zhiwen Fan, Kairun Wen, Wenyan Cong, Kevin Wang, Jian Zhang, Xinghao Ding, Danfei Xu, Boris Ivanovic, Marco Pavone, Georgios Pavlakos, Zhangyang Wang, and Yue Wang. Instantsplat: Sparse-view gaussian splatting in seconds, 2024

    2024

  53. [57]

    Putting nerf on a diet: Semantically consistent few-shot view synthesis

    Ajay Jain, Matthew Tancik, and Pieter Abbeel. Putting nerf on a diet: Semantically consistent few-shot view synthesis. InICCV, 2021

    2021

  54. [58]

    G3r: Gradient guided generalizable reconstruction

    Yun Chen, Jingkang Wang, Ze Yang, Sivabalan Manivasagam, and Raquel Urtasun. G3r: Gradient guided generalizable reconstruction. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, 2024

    2024

  55. [59]

    MonoNeRF: Learning a generalizable dynamic radiance field from monocular videos

    Fengrui Tian, Shaoyi Du, and Yueqi Duan. MonoNeRF: Learning a generalizable dynamic radiance field from monocular videos. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  56. [60]

    Enhancing neRF akin to enhancing LLMs: Generalizable neRF transformer with mixture-of-view-experts

    Wenyan Cong, Hanxue Liang, Peihao Wang, Zhiwen Fan, Tianlong Chen, Mukund Varma, Yi Wang, and Zhangyang Wang. Enhancing neRF akin to enhancing LLMs: Generalizable neRF transformer with mixture-of-view-experts. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  57. [61]

    Is attention all that neRF needs? InICLR, 2023

    Mukund Varma T, Peihao Wang, Xuxi Chen, Tianlong Chen, Subhashini Venugopalan, and Zhangyang Wang. Is attention all that neRF needs? InICLR, 2023

    2023

  58. [62]

    Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d

    Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  59. [63]

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

    David Charatan, Sizhe Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Vincent Sitzmann. pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  60. [64]

    Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images.ECCV, 2024

    Yuedong Chen, Haofei Xu, Chuanxia Zheng, Bohan Zhuang, Marc Pollefeys, Andreas Geiger, Tat-Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images.ECCV, 2024

    2024

  61. [66]

    Gs-lrm: Large reconstruction model for 3d gaussian splatting.ECCV, 2024

    Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. Gs-lrm: Large reconstruction model for 3d gaussian splatting.ECCV, 2024

    2024

  62. [67]

    Scube: Instant large-scale scene reconstruction using voxsplats

    Xuanchi Ren, Yifan Lu, Hanxue Liang, Jay Zhangjie Wu, Huan Ling, Mike Chen, Francis Fidler, Sanja annd Williams, and Jiahui Huang. Scube: Instant large-scale scene reconstruction using voxsplats. InNeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  63. [68]

    Lvsm: A large view synthesis model with minimal 3d inductive bias

    Haian Jin, Hanwen Jiang, Hao Tan, Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Tianyuan Zhang, Fujun Luan, Noah Snavely, and Zexiang Xu. Lvsm: A large view synthesis model with minimal 3d inductive bias. InICLR, 2025. 9

    2025

  64. [69]

    Rayzer: A self-supervised large view synthesis model

    Hanwen Jiang, Hao Tan, Peng Wang, Haian Jin, Yue Zhao, Sai Bi, Kai Zhang, Fujun Luan, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Qixing Huang, and Georgios Pavlakos. Rayzer: A self-supervised large view synthesis model. 2025

    2025

  65. [70]

    Splatt3r: Zero-shot gaussian splatting from uncalibrated image pairs

    Brandon Smart, Chuanxia Zheng, Iro Laina, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Splatt3r: Zero-shot gaussian splatting from uncalibrated image pairs. 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Susskind, and Alexander G

    Xiaoming Zhao, Alex Colburn, Fangchang Ma, Miguel Ángel Bautista, Joshua M. Susskind, and Alexander G. Schwing. Pseudo-Generalized Dynamic View Synthesis from a Video. In ICLR, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Monst3r: A simple approach for estimating geometry in the presence of motion.ICLR, 2025

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Varun Jampani, Trevor Darrell, Forrester Cole, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Monst3r: A simple approach for estimating geometry in the presence of motion.ICLR, 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and Jerome Revaud. Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    L4gm: Large 4d gaussian reconstruction model

    Jiawei Ren, Kevin Xie, Ashkan Mirzaei, Hanxue Liang, Xiaohui Zeng, Karsten Kreis, Ziwei Liu, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, Seung Wook Kim, and Huan Ling. L4gm: Large 4d gaussian reconstruction model. InNeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    Feed-forward bullet- time reconstruction of dynamic scenes from monocular videos

    Hanxue Liang, Jiawei Ren, Ashkan Mirzaei, Antonio Torralba, Ziwei Liu, Igor Gilitschenski, Sanja Fidler, Cengiz Oztireli, Huan Ling, Zan Gojcic, and Jiahui Huang. Feed-forward bullet- time reconstruction of dynamic scenes from monocular videos. 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical ai, 2025

    Niket Agarwal, Arslan Ali, Maciej Bala, Yogesh Balaji, Erik Barker, Tiffany Cai, Prithvijit Chattopadhyay, Yongxin Chen, Yin Cui, Yifan Ding, Daniel Dworakowski, Jiaojiao Fan, Michele Fenzi, Francesco Ferroni, Sanja Fidler, Dieter Fox, Songwei Ge, Yunhao Ge, Jinwei Gu, Siddhar...

    2025

  74. [82]

    Sv4d 2.0: Enhancing spatio-temporal consistency in multi-view video diffusion for high-quality 4d gener- ation, 2025

    Chun-Han Yao, Yiming Xie, Vikram V oleti, Huaizu Jiang, and Varun Jampani. Sv4d 2.0: Enhancing spatio-temporal consistency in multi-view video diffusion for high-quality 4d gener- ation, 2025

    2025

  75. [83]

    Flex attention: A programming model for generating optimized attention kernels, 2024

    Juechu Dong, Boyuan Feng, Driss Guessous, Yanbo Liang, and Horace He. Flex attention: A programming model for generating optimized attention kernels, 2024. 10

    2024

  76. [84]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. 2022

    2022

  77. [85]

    Klaus Greff, Francois Belletti, Lucas Beyer, Carl Doersch, Yilun Du, Daniel Duckworth, David J Fleet, Dan Gnanapragasam, Florian Golemo, Charles Herrmann, Thomas Kipf, Abhijit Kundu, Dmitry Lagun, Issam Laradji, Hsueh-Ti (Derek) Liu, Henning Meyer, Yishu Miao, Derek Nowrouzeza...

    2022

  78. [86]

    Novel view synthesis of dynamic scenes with globally coherent depths from a monocular camera

    Jae Shin Yoon, Kihwan Kim, Orazio Gallo, Hyun Soo Park, and Jan Kautz. Novel view synthesis of dynamic scenes with globally coherent depths from a monocular camera. InCVPR, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    The unreason- able effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreason- able effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InCVPR, 2018

    2018

  80. [88]

    Dl3dv-10k: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision

    Lu Ling, Yichen Sheng, Zhi Tu, Wentian Zhao, Cheng Xin, Kun Wan, Lantao Yu, Qianyu Guo, Zixun Yu, Yawen Lu, et al. Dl3dv-10k: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  81. [89]

    Mvimgnet: A large-scale dataset of multi-view images

    Xianggang Yu, Mutian Xu, Yidan Zhang, Haolin Liu, Chongjie Ye, Yushuang Wu, Zizheng Yan, Tianyou Liang, Guanying Chen, Shuguang Cui, and Xiaoguang Han. Mvimgnet: A large-scale dataset of multi-view images. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Infinite nature: Perpetual view generation of natural scenes from a single image

    Andrew Liu, Richard Tucker, Varun Jampani, Ameesh Makadia, Noah Snavely, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Infinite nature: Perpetual view generation of natural scenes from a single image. In ICCV, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    Vbench++: Comprehensive and versatile benchmark suite for video generative models

    Ziqi Huang, Fan Zhang, Xiaojie Xu, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Ziyue Dong, Qianli Ma, Nattapol Chanpaisit, Chenyang Si, Yuming Jiang, Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Ying-Cong Chen, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, Yu Qiao, and Ziwei Liu. Vbench++: Comprehensive and versatile benchmark suite for v...

    2024

  84. [92]

    Met3r: Measuring multi-view consistency in generated images

    Mohammad Asim, Christopher Wewer, Thomas Wimmer, Bernt Schiele, and Jan Eric Lenssen. Met3r: Measuring multi-view consistency in generated images. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  85. [93]

    Tanks and temples: Bench- marking large-scale scene reconstruction.ToG, 2017

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: Bench- marking large-scale scene reconstruction.ToG, 2017

    2017

  86. [94]

    Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines.ToG, 2019

    2019

  87. [95]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, and Zhaoyang Lv. Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video. InCVPR, 2022. 11

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.