Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

SGLoc: Semantic Localization System for Camera Pose Estimation from 3D Gaussian Splatting Representation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 SGLoc shows that semantic matching plus rendering refinement can localize a camera from a 3D Gaussian Splatting map with no initial pose prior.

desk verdict SGLoc's semantic retrieval + 3DGS refinement is a genuinely new pipeline, but the unexplained ablation failure with ACE/GLACE/Marepo and a near-duplicate PSNR filter leave the global-localization claim unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12027 v1 pith:BYQNTGCH submitted 2025-07-16 cs.CV cs.RO

Beining Xu , Siting Zhu , Hesheng Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords visuallocalizationcameraposeestimation3DGaussianSplattingsemanticretrievalcoarse-to-fineregistrationrendering-basedrefinementscenedescriptorsindoorrelocalization
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

SGLoc claims that a camera can be localized from a pre-built 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) map without any initial pose prior, by first retrieving a coarse pose through semantic matching between the query image and map submaps, then refining it with rendering-based optimization. The paper argues that low-level feature matching fails in texture-poor or changing scenes, whereas semantic consistency between 2D images and the 3D scene gives a reliable coarse localization. On the 7Scenes and 12Scenes datasets, SGLoc reports the best average median errors (0.5 cm / 0.15° and 0.29 cm / 0.17°), and ablations show that replacing its semantic retrieval with other pose estimators makes the same refinement module fail, so the coarse pose quality is the deciding factor. A sympathetic reader would take away that semantic place retrieval can supply the convergence basin needed by rendering-based refinement, turning 3DGS maps into globally localizable representations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the scene semantic descriptor. A query image and each 3DGS submap are split into object instances; the image instance features come from a pretrained vision-language embedding model, and the 3D instance features from a point-cloud encoder, both enriched with per-instance color, size, and position. Multi-head self-attention aggregates these instance features into a single descriptor per query image and per submap, and a contrastive loss aligns the two descriptor spaces. Retrieval by cosine similarity over these descriptors selects the top-k submaps and their poses, giving coarse initial poses; a PSNR filter discards mismatches. The fine stage then refines the pose by gradient descent on a combination of pixel loss and matched-keypoint loss between the query image and 3DGS-rendered images.

What would settle it

Take a query image from a viewpoint deliberately placed far from every training-trajectory pose (e.g., a holdout path through the scene that never comes within 0.5 m and 10° of a sampled submap center) and measure the final median translation error; if semantic retrieval still returns a coarse pose but refinement fails to bring the error below the reported 0.5 cm level, the coverage assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a coarse-to-fine pose regression pipeline from a global 3DGS map. In the coarse stage, the query image and 3DGS submaps are segmented into instances; 2D instance features come from a pretrained vision-language encoder and 3D instance features from a point-cloud encoder, augmented with color, size, and position encodings. A multi-head attention module aggregates instance features into a single scene semantic descriptor per image and per submap, and contrastive learning aligns 2D and 3D descriptors in a shared space. Cosine similarity selects the top-k submaps, whose associated poses serve as coarse initial poses, with a PSNR filter discarding gross mismatches. The fine stage then iteratively optimizes the pose by minimizing pixel and feature-matching losses between the query image and images rendered from the 3DGS map. The paper argues this design removes the need for any pose prior and outperforms feature-based and regression-based baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The system's accuracy rests on the assumption that the fixed-interval sampling of training-trajectory poses puts a submap center within the refinement step's convergence basin for every query image, so the coarse pose error is small enough to be corrected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SGLoc localizes a query RGB image from a global 3DGS map without an initial pose prior, with median errors of 0.5 cm / 0.15° on 7Scenes and 0.29 cm / 0.17° on the 12Scenes subset.
  • Semantic-based global retrieval is the decisive component: replacing it with three state-of-the-art pose estimators and keeping the same refinement module raises median translation errors to over 100 cm on both datasets.
  • Rendering-based refinement multiplies accuracy, cutting translation and rotation errors by at least 5 times and reaching 0.1 cm / 0.01° error levels when given a good coarse pose.
  • The method transfers across indoor scenes without per-scene pose priors, because the retrieval stage is trained with contrastive learning on image-submap pairs and the refinement stage is training-free.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported numbers depend on sampling training-trajectory poses at a fixed spatial interval; a natural extension is to test how the method degrades when query viewpoints deviate from the training trajectory, which the current evaluation does not isolate.
  • The same semantic-retrieval-then-render pipeline could be applied to other differentiable scene representations (e.g., NeRF or meshes) or to outdoor datasets, where the submap sampling density would need to scale with scene size.
  • If retrieval is the bottleneck, the method's accuracy could be improved by learning the submap sampling rather than using a fixed interval, or by widening the refinement loss basin through coarse-to-fine pyramid rendering.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. SGLoc proposes a coarse-to-fine visual localization system for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) maps. In the coarse stage, a query RGB image is semantically segmented with SAM, instance features are extracted with CLIP and PointNet++, aggregated through attention into scene descriptors, and matched against descriptors of 3DGS submaps via a contrastively trained embedding; the top-k submaps provide coarse camera poses, which are filtered by a PSNR threshold. In the fine stage, the coarse pose is refined by gradient-based minimization of pixel and keypoint-matching losses against renders from the 3DGS map. The paper reports median translation/rotation errors on subsets of 7Scenes and 12Scenes and claims state-of-the-art accuracy and global localization without an initial pose prior.

Significance. If the claims hold, SGLoc would be a useful step toward direct pose estimation from 3DGS maps without an external pose prior, and the semantic retrieval idea is a plausible way to obtain coarse candidates for rendering-based refinement. The reported low errors are internally consistent in the sense that the final numbers follow from the stated pipeline, and the ablations do show that both stages contribute. However, the paper's central claim is currently under-supported: the ablation comparison against ACE/GLACE/Marepo initializations is unexplained, the submap coverage and PSNR-filter behavior are not quantified, and the evaluation covers only subsets of the datasets without uncertainty estimates. The paper does not release code or data, and several textual/table inconsistencies (including an abstract-level error value that contradicts Table II) reduce confidence in the reported numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-C, Tables III–VI] The ablation tables are internally inconsistent with the claim that the refinement module is a general pose refiner. In Tables V–VI, the coarse poses produced by the semantic retrieval (rows 'w/o SGLoc2') have median errors up to 6.26 cm/5.42° (7Scenes Redkitchen) and 4.24 cm/4.52° (12Scenes average), and the refinement reduces these to 1.3 cm/0.26° and 0.29 cm/0.17°. In Tables III–IV, initial poses from ACE, GLACE, and Marepo—whose standalone accuracies on the same scenes are roughly 0.7 cm/0.5° or better—cause the same refinement module to diverge to errors above 100 cm/50°. This pattern is not explained in the paper. Unless the refinement uses information from the retrieval beyond the coarse pose (e.g., the selected submap identity or a rendering of that submap), the comparison is not a controlled test; if it does use such information, the caption should say so. The paper should report per-query coarse pose errors from the retrieval, the number of queries for which the PSNR filter rejects all top-k candidates, and an ablation in which ACE/GLACE/Marepo poses are combined with the same submap selection as SGLoc.
  2. [§III-A and Implementation Details] The global-localization claim rests on the assumption that test query poses fall within the convergence basin of one of the sampled submap centers. The submap sampling interval is only described as a 'fixed spatial interval depending on the size and complexity of the scene'; no interval values, number of submaps, or overlap statistics are given. The PSNR threshold ε=55 is a fixed hyperparameter with no sensitivity analysis, and the success rate of the filter is not reported. Please provide per-scene sampling intervals, coverage statistics relative to the test poses, and a sensitivity table for ε and k (Section IV-A states k=5, but no ablation on k is presented).
  3. [§IV-A and §IV-B] The evaluation covers only a subset of each dataset—4 of 7 scenes on 7Scenes and 3 of 12 scenes on 12Scenes, as stated in Section IV-A—yet the abstract and Section IV.B claim the 'highest average accuracy in 7scenes dataset' and the lowest average errors on 12Scenes without qualifying that these claims refer to the evaluated subset. Median errors are reported without error bars, query counts, or any uncertainty measure. Please either evaluate the full datasets or restrict all dataset-level claims to the evaluated subset, and report variance or confidence intervals for the medians.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV.B] The sentence claiming 'the lowest average translation (0.15cm) and rotation (0.05°) errors' contradicts Table II, whose average column for SGLoc is 0.5 cm/0.15°. Please correct the numbers in the text.
  2. [References and Table II/IV] The method abbreviated 'Marepo' is cited as [52] in the tables and text, but reference [52] is the MaskFormer paper; the Map-Relative Pose Regression paper appears to be [48]. Please fix this citation mismatch.
  3. [Figure 1 and §III-B] The notation 'MSA' appears in Figure 1 without being defined in the caption; the method section introduces the same module as Multi-Head Self-Attention. Please define the acronym at first use.
  4. [Section III-B, Eq. (3)] The PSNR threshold ε=55 is very high for rendered-versus-query images; if MAX_I is 255, 55 dB corresponds to an MSE of about 0.2 pixel intensity squared, which may discard most or all candidates unless the rendered and query images are nearly identical. Please specify the pixel value range and report the empirical distribution of PSNR values at the chosen threshold.
  5. [General] The paper states 'Code will be available' but no code or data is released; for a system with many hand-set components (submap interval, τ, λ, k, ε), releasing code or at least the retrieval and refinement scripts would materially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported pose estimates are evaluated on held-out test images against external baselines, and neither the coarse retrieval nor the rendering refinement encodes the ground-truth pose in its objective.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and empirically grounded. The coarse stage trains semantic scene descriptors with a contrastive loss on image/submap pairs (Eq. 4) and selects top-k submap-center poses as initial guesses; this is standard supervised retrieval, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The fine stage minimizes a photometric and keypoint-matching loss between the query and rendered images (Eqs. 5-8), an objective that does not include the ground-truth pose and is therefore not circular by construction. Evaluation uses held-out test sequences from 7Scenes and 12Scenes against external baselines, so the headline accuracies are genuine measurements rather than consequences of how parameters were fit. The self-citations (refs. 1, 2, 3, 11, 12) appear only in related-work and motivation contexts and are not load-bearing for any claimed result. The ablation showing that ACE/GLACE/Marepo initializations fail with the same refinement (Tables III-IV) is a possible correctness or robustness concern about the refinement's convergence basin, but it is not a circularity: the comparison uses different, independently produced initial poses, and the paper's own coarse poses are produced by a separately trained retrieval module. No equation or fitted parameter was found to be equivalent to the reported output by definition.

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

The system uses no new physical entities or mediators. It introduces several hand-set hyperparameters (k, PSNR threshold, tau, lambda, submap interval) and relies on domain assumptions about map quality, semantic feature transfer, learned alignment, and local convergence of rendering-based refinement.

free parameters (5)
  • top-k candidate submaps k = 5
    Number of retrieval candidates passed to refinement; hand-set in Implementation Details with no sensitivity analysis.
  • PSNR threshold epsilon = 55
    Threshold used to discard coarse poses whose rendered image is too dissimilar to the query; introduced in Section III-B without justification or sensitivity analysis, and 55 dB is unusually strict.
  • contrastive temperature tau = 0.1
    Temperature in the contrastive loss (Eq. 4); set in Implementation Details.
  • refinement loss weight lambda = not reported
    Balancing coefficient between matching loss and pixel loss in Eq. 6; the value is never stated, which affects reproducibility.
  • submap spatial sampling interval = not reported
    Fixed interval used to sample camera poses for submap centers; the paper says it depends on scene size and complexity but gives no concrete values, and this determines coarse-pose coverage.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 3DGS global map is built with Gaussian Grouping, which requires training images with known camera poses and identity encoding parameters.
    The map is an input representation; if the map poses are inaccurate or the semantic identity encoding is imperfect, downstream pose estimates inherit those errors.
  • domain assumption Submap poses sampled from training trajectories are valid coarse pose candidates for test queries.
    Section III-A and Implementation Details; if a query location is not near any sampled submap center, retrieval cannot provide a good initial pose and refinement may diverge.
  • domain assumption CLIP and SAM semantic features transfer across indoor train and test appearances.
    Feature extraction sections rely on these pretrained models to provide stable semantic descriptors; no experiments measure their robustness to lighting, viewpoint, or occlusion changes.
  • domain assumption Contrastive learning aligns 2D image descriptors and 3DGS submap descriptors in a shared space where cosine similarity reflects place similarity.
    The retrieval quality depends entirely on this learned alignment (Eq. 4); the paper does not report retrieval recall or qualitative matching failures.
  • domain assumption Rendering from 3DGS is differentiable and image-residual optimization converges to the correct pose from coarse initial poses.
    The fine stage (Eqs. 5-8) assumes the loss landscape is sufficiently convex near the coarse pose; the ablation tables show this assumption fails for other initial pose estimators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SGLoc: Semantic Localization System for Camera Pose Estimation from 3D Gaussian Splatting Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BYQNTGCH

@misc{pith2026250712027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SGLoc: Semantic Localization System for Camera Pose Estimation from 3D Gaussian Splatting Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BYQNTGCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12027}
}
read the original abstract

We propose SGLoc, a novel localization system that directly regresses camera poses from 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) representation by leveraging semantic information. Our method utilizes the semantic relationship between 2D image and 3D scene representation to estimate the 6DoF pose without prior pose information. In this system, we introduce a multi-level pose regression strategy that progressively estimates and refines the pose of query image from the global 3DGS map, without requiring initial pose priors. Moreover, we introduce a semantic-based global retrieval algorithm that establishes correspondences between 2D (image) and 3D (3DGS map). By matching the extracted scene semantic descriptors of 2D query image and 3DGS semantic representation, we align the image with the local region of the global 3DGS map, thereby obtaining a coarse pose estimation. Subsequently, we refine the coarse pose by iteratively optimizing the difference between the query image and the rendered image from 3DGS. Our SGLoc demonstrates superior performance over baselines on 12scenes and 7scenes datasets, showing excellent capabilities in global localization without initial pose prior. Code will be available at https://github.com/IRMVLab/SGLoc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of SGLoc. Our method takes a query image and 3DGS global map as input. We perform semantic segmentation on both query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative comparison of localization accuracy on the 7Scenes/chess and 12Scenes/lounge scenes. Camera poses with distinct colors represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dvlo: Deep visual-lidar odometry with local-to-global feature fusion and bi-directional structure alignment,

    J. Liu, D. Zhuo, Z. Feng, S. Zhu, C. Peng, Z. Liu, and H. Wang, “Dvlo: Deep visual-lidar odometry with local-to-global feature fusion and bi-directional structure alignment,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 475–493

    2024

  2. [2]

    Towards Autonomous Indoor Parking: A Globally Consistent Semantic SLAM System and A Semantic Localization Subsystem

    Y . Sha, S. Zhu, H. Guo, Z. Wang, and H. Wang, “Towards autonomous indoor parking: A globally consistent semantic slam system and a semantic localization subsystem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12169 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Sni-slam: Semantic neural implicit slam,

    S. Zhu, G. Wang, H. Blum, J. Liu, L. Song, M. Pollefeys, and H. Wang, “Sni-slam: Semantic neural implicit slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 21 167–21 177

    2024

  4. [4]

    D2-net: A trainable cnn for joint description and detection of local features,

    M. Dusmanu, I. Rocco, T. Pajdla, M. Pollefeys, J. Sivic, A. Torii, and T. Sattler, “D2-net: A trainable cnn for joint description and detection of local features,” in Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 8092–8101

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed,

    P. Lindenberger, P.-E. Sarlin, and M. Pollefeys, “Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 17 627– 17 638

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    From coarse to fine: Robust hierarchical localization at large scale,

    P.-E. Sarlin, C. Cadena, R. Siegwart, and M. Dymczyk, “From coarse to fine: Robust hierarchical localization at large scale,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, 2019, pp. 12 716–12 725

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization,

    A. Kendall, M. Grimes, and R. Cipolla, “Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 2938–2946

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Visual localization via few-shot scene region classification,

    S. Dong, S. Wang, Y . Zhuang, J. Kannala, M. Pollefeys, and B. Chen, “Visual localization via few-shot scene region classification,” in 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). IEEE, 2022, pp. 393– 402

    work page 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Hierarchical scene coordinate classification and regression for visual localization,

    X. Li, S. Wang, Y . Zhao, J. Verbeek, and J. Kannala, “Hierarchical scene coordinate classification and regression for visual localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 11 983–11 992

    2020

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    3d gaussian splatting in robotics: A survey,

    S. Zhu, G. Wang, D. Kong, and H. Wang, “3d gaussian splatting in robotics: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12262 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Semgauss-slam: Dense semantic gaussian splatting slam,

    S. Zhu, R. Qin, G. Wang, J. Liu, and H. Wang, “Semgauss-slam: Dense semantic gaussian splatting slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07494 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    icomma: Inverting 3d gaussian splatting for camera pose estimation via comparing and matching,

    Y . Sun, X. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Zhang, C. Jiang, Y . Guo, and F. Wang, “icomma: Inverting 3d gaussian splatting for camera pose estimation via comparing and matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09031, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gsloc: Efficient camera pose refinement via 3d gaussian splatting,

    C. Liu, S. Chen, Y . Bhalgat, S. Hu, M. Cheng, Z. Wang, V . A. Prisacariu, and T. Braud, “Gsloc: Efficient camera pose refinement via 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11085 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Splatloc: 3d gaussian splatting-based visual localization for augmented reality,

    H. Zhai, X. Zhang, B. Zhao, H. Li, Y . He, Z. Cui, H. Bao, and G. Zhang, “Splatloc: 3d gaussian splatting-based visual localization for augmented reality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14067 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gsplatloc: Grounding keypoint descriptors into 3d gaussian splatting for improved visual localization,

    G. Sidorov, M. Mohrat, K. Lebedeva, R. Rakhimov, and S. Kolyubin, “Gsplatloc: Grounding keypoint descriptors into 3d gaussian splatting for improved visual localization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16502 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Complete solution classification for the perspective-three-point problem,

    X.-S. Gao, X.-R. Hou, J. Tang, and H.-F. Cheng, “Complete solution classification for the perspective-three-point problem,” IEEE transac- tions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 930–943, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. FISCHLER AND, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Commun. ACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    1981

  11. [19]

    Su- perglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,

    P.-E. Sarlin, D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “Su- perglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 4938–4947

    2020

  12. [20]

    Loftr: Detector- free local feature matching with transformers,

    J. Sun, Z. Shen, Y . Wang, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “Loftr: Detector- free local feature matching with transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 8922–8931

    2021

  13. [21]

    Xfeat: Accelerated features for lightweight image matching,

    G. Potje, F. Cadar, A. Araujo, R. Martins, and E. R. Nascimento, “Xfeat: Accelerated features for lightweight image matching,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 2682–2691

    2024

  14. [22]

    Visual camera re-localization from rgb and rgb-d images using dsac,

    E. Brachmann and C. Rother, “Visual camera re-localization from rgb and rgb-d images using dsac,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 5847–5865, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hfnet: Hierarchical feedback network with multilevel atrous spatial pyramid pooling for rgb-d saliency detection,

    W. Zhou, C. Liu, J. Lei, L. Yu, and T. Luo, “Hfnet: Hierarchical feedback network with multilevel atrous spatial pyramid pooling for rgb-d saliency detection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 490, pp. 347–357, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Back to the feature: Learning robust camera localization from pixels to pose,

    P.-E. Sarlin, A. Unagar, M. Larsson, H. Germain, C. Toft, V . Larsson, M. Pollefeys, V . Lepetit, L. Hammarstrand, F. Kahl, et al. , “Back to the feature: Learning robust camera localization from pixels to pose,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Dfnet: Enhance absolute pose regression with direct feature matching,

    S. Chen, X. Li, Z. Wang, and V . A. Prisacariu, “Dfnet: Enhance absolute pose regression with direct feature matching,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 1–17

    2022

  18. [26]

    Geometric loss functions for camera pose regression with deep learning,

    A. Kendall and R. Cipolla, “Geometric loss functions for camera pose regression with deep learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 5974–5983

    2017

  19. [27]

    Learning multi-scene absolute pose regression with transformers,

    Y . Shavit, R. Ferens, and Y . Keller, “Learning multi-scene absolute pose regression with transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2733–2742

    2021

  20. [28]

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

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

    2021

  21. [29]

    inerf: Inverting neural radiance fields for pose estimation,

    L. Yen-Chen, P. Florence, J. T. Barron, A. Rodriguez, P. Isola, and T.-Y . Lin, “inerf: Inverting neural radiance fields for pose estimation,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1323–1330

    2021

  22. [30]

    Neural refinement for absolute pose regression with fea- ture synthesis,

    S. Chen, Y . Bhalgat, X. Li, J. Bian, K. Li, Z. Wang, and V . A. Prisacariu, “Neural refinement for absolute pose regression with fea- ture synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10087 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pnerfloc: Visual localization with point-based neural radiance fields,

    B. Zhao, L. Yang, M. Mao, H. Bao, and Z. Cui, “Pnerfloc: Visual localization with point-based neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 7450–7459

    2024

  24. [32]

    Crossfire: Camera relocalization on self- supervised features from an implicit representation,

    A. Moreau, N. Piasco, M. Bennehar, D. Tsishkou, B. Stanciulescu, and A. de La Fortelle, “Crossfire: Camera relocalization on self- supervised features from an implicit representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 252–262

    2023

  25. [33]

    The nerfect match: Exploring nerf features for visual localization,

    Q. Zhou, M. Maximov, O. Litany, and L. Leal-Taix ´e, “The nerfect match: Exploring nerf features for visual localization,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 108–127

    2024

  26. [34]

    Pgsr: Planar-based gaussian splatting for efficient and high-fidelity surface reconstruction,

    D. Chen, H. Li, W. Ye, Y . Wang, W. Xie, S. Zhai, N. Wang, H. Liu, H. Bao, and G. Zhang, “Pgsr: Planar-based gaussian splatting for efficient and high-fidelity surface reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    6dgs: 6d pose estimation from a single image and a 3d gaussian splatting model,

    B. Matteo, T. Tsesmelis, S. James, F. Poiesi, and A. Del Bue, “6dgs: 6d pose estimation from a single image and a 3d gaussian splatting model,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 420–436

    2024

  28. [36]

    Clip and complementary meth- ods,

    M. Hafner, M. Katsantoni, T. K ¨oster, J. Marks, J. Mukherjee, D. Staiger, J. Ule, and M. Zavolan, “Clip and complementary meth- ods,” Nature Reviews Methods Primers , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 20, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Gaussian grouping: Segment and edit anything in 3d scenes,

    M. Ye, M. Danelljan, F. Yu, and L. Ke, “Gaussian grouping: Segment and edit anything in 3d scenes,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 162–179

    2024

  32. [40]

    Uniloc: Towards universal place recognition using any single modality,

    Y . Xia, Z. Li, Y .-J. Li, L. Shi, H. Cao, J. F. Henriques, and D. Cre- mers, “Uniloc: Towards universal place recognition using any single modality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12079 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    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,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  34. [42]

    Signal-to-noise ratio,

    D. H. Johnson, “Signal-to-noise ratio,” Scholarpedia, vol. 1, no. 12, p. 2088, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

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

    2021

  36. [44]

    Re- assessing the limitations of cnn methods for camera pose regression,

    T. Ng, A. Lopez-Rodriguez, V . Balntas, and K. Mikolajczyk, “Re- assessing the limitations of cnn methods for camera pose regression,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07260 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Leveraging neural radiance fields for uncertainty-aware visual localization,

    L. Chen, W. Chen, R. Wang, and M. Pollefeys, “Leveraging neural radiance fields for uncertainty-aware visual localization,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 6298–6305

    2024

  38. [46]

    Real-time rgb- d camera relocalization,

    B. Glocker, S. Izadi, J. Shotton, and A. Criminisi, “Real-time rgb- d camera relocalization,” in 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 2013, pp. 173–179

    2013

  39. [47]

    Scene coordinate regression forests for camera relocalization in rgb-d images,

    J. Shotton, B. Glocker, C. Zach, S. Izadi, A. Criminisi, and A. Fitzgib- bon, “Scene coordinate regression forests for camera relocalization in rgb-d images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2013, pp. 2930–2937

    2013

  40. [48]

    Map- relative pose regression for visual re-localization,

    S. Chen, T. Cavallari, V . A. Prisacariu, and E. Brachmann, “Map- relative pose regression for visual re-localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2024, pp. 20 665–20 674

    2024

  41. [49]

    Accelerated coordi- nate encoding: Learning to relocalize in minutes using rgb and poses,

    E. Brachmann, T. Cavallari, and V . A. Prisacariu, “Accelerated coordi- nate encoding: Learning to relocalize in minutes using rgb and poses,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 5044–5053

    2023

  42. [50]

    Glace: Global local accelerated coordinate encoding,

    F. Wang, X. Jiang, S. Galliani, C. V ogel, and M. Pollefeys, “Glace: Global local accelerated coordinate encoding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 21 562–21 571

    2024

  43. [51]

    Feature query networks: Neural surface description for camera pose refinement,

    H. Germain, D. DeTone, G. Pascoe, T. Schmidt, D. Novotny, R. New- combe, C. Sweeney, R. Szeliski, and V . Balntas, “Feature query networks: Neural surface description for camera pose refinement,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmenta- tion,

    B. Cheng, I. Misra, A. G. Schwing, A. Kirillov, and R. Girdhar, “Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmenta- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 1290–1299

    2022

  45. [53]

    Dsac-differentiable ransac for camera localization,

    E. Brachmann, A. Krull, S. Nowozin, J. Shotton, F. Michel, S. Gumhold, and C. Rother, “Dsac-differentiable ransac for camera localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 6684–6692

    2017

  46. [54]

    Hr-apr: Apr-agnostic framework with uncertainty estimation and hierarchical refinement for camera relocalisation,

    C. Liu, S. Chen, Y . Zhao, H. Huang, V . Prisacariu, and T. Braud, “Hr-apr: Apr-agnostic framework with uncertainty estimation and hierarchical refinement for camera relocalisation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 8544–8550

    2024

Pith tools

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