Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Unposed 3DGS Reconstruction with Probabilistic Procrustes Mapping

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

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

Pith's one-line read Unposed 3DGS reconstruction from hundreds of outdoor images becomes practical via submap splitting, probabilistic Procrustes alignment, and joint pose-scene refinement.

desk verdict Solid submap-alignment idea with a clean analytic-jacobian touch, but the headline SOTA claim is undercut by an all-training-image evaluation and an unexplained Table 1/2 ATE discrepancy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18541 v1 pith:J5I3X4OZ submitted 2025-07-24 cs.CV

Chong Cheng , Zijian Wang , Sicheng Yu , Yu Hu , Nanjie Yao , Hao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingunposedreconstructionprobabilisticProcrustesmulti-viewstereocameraposeestimationglobalalignmentnovelviewsynthesisdivide-and-conquer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims a way to run 3D Gaussian Splatting reconstruction from hundreds of unposed outdoor photos, without the usual Structure-from-Motion preprocessing. It splits the images into overlapping groups, lets a pretrained multi-view stereo network build a local point cloud and poses per group, and then registers those submaps into one global scene. The registration step is recast as a probabilistic Procrustes problem: a closed-form Sim(3) solution (Kabsch-Umeyama) seeds an entropy-regularized refinement with a dustbin channel that rejects unreliable correspondences. After global alignment, the paper jointly optimizes the Gaussians and the camera poses through differentiable rendering, using an analytic quaternion Jacobian for pose gradients. On Waymo and KITTI sequences of 200 images, it reports lower absolute trajectory error and better rendering quality than the tested baselines, with the alignment itself finishing in minutes.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is probabilistic Procrustes mapping (PPM). It takes pixel-level correspondences between an overlapping frame in two adjacent submaps - points that project to the same pixel under both local poses - and treats the submap-to-submap similarity transformation as a Procrustes problem with learnable soft correspondence weights. A closed-form Kabsch-Umeyama step provides the initial scale, rotation, and translation; then the objective L = sum_l gamma_l ||sR p_l + t - q_l||^2 + epsilon sum_l gamma_l ln gamma_l is minimized alternately over the weights (an entropy-regularized update, with a virtual dustbin point carrying a fixed marginal weight to reject outliers) and over the transformation (gradient descent on scale, translation, and a unit-quaternion rotation). A second mechanism is the joint 3DGS-pose optimization: Gaussians are initialized from confidence-aware anchor points, and camera poses receive analytic gradients through the renderer via a closed-form quaternion-point Jacobian and projected gradient normalization to keep the quaternion unit-length.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on a sequence where the single overlap frame between two subsets is nearly degenerate (low parallax, heavy occlusion, or motion blur) and check whether the ATE at the submap boundary jumps to the level of the ICP baseline; alternatively, swap the pretrained MVS backbone for a weaker model and measure whether the final pose error degrades by more than the joint optimization can absorb.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the bottleneck to unposed 3DGS at outdoor scale is not the Gaussian optimization but the global registration of many local reconstructions, and that this registration can be solved cleanly at the pixel level. Because adjacent image subsets share at least one frame, the corresponding 3D points in the overlapping frame define a correspondence set between submaps. Mapping those correspondences is formulated as a weighted Procrustes problem over Sim(3), solved first in closed form and then refined by probabilistic coupling with a soft dustbin that absorbs a controlled fraction of outliers. Iterating this over all adjacent pairs yields a globally consistent point cloud and camera trajectory. The paper then shows that initializing Gaussians from confidence-pruned, downsampled anchor points and refining poses through differentiable 3DGS rendering removes the residual scale noise and pose drift, achieving the reported state-of-the-art results on Waymo and KITTI.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes the pretrained multi-view stereo network produces locally consistent point clouds and poses, and that the single overlapping frame between adjacent subsets yields reliable pixel-level correspondences; if the local depth has scale bias or the overlap view lacks parallax, the Procrustes alignment inherits that error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unposed 3DGS reconstruction no longer requires a full COLMAP pass; the alignment step replaces hours of SfM with minutes of closed-form plus iterative refinement.
  • The method's pose accuracy (ATE 1.41 m on Waymo, 1.64 m on KITTI) and rendering quality (31.53/24.83 PSNR) beat the compared SfM-based and feed-forward baselines on 200-image outdoor sequences.
  • Because each subset is processed independently, the approach sidesteps the memory blow-up that limits feed-forward MVS and Splatting models to a dozen or so views.
  • The dustbin mechanism makes the alignment robust to a controlled fraction of unreliable correspondences, capped by a user-set parameter (20% in the experiments).
  • The ablations show that disabling either the probabilistic Procrustes module or the joint 3DGS-pose refinement degrades both pose accuracy and rendering quality, indicating that both components carry the final result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same divide-and-conquer alignment could be applied to submaps from any feed-forward MVS model, not just the one used here, so the framework's accuracy should scale with improvements in the backbone; a natural test is swapping in a different pretrained model and measuring whether ATE and PSNR improve in step.
  • Setting the overlap to a single frame means the entire alignment of a long sequence rests on the reliability of one shared frame per boundary; increasing the overlap to two or three frames would add redundancy at modest cost and might reduce drift on longer sequences, an extension the paper does not evaluate.
  • The probabilistic Procrustes formulation could transfer to other multi-submap fusion problems, such as simultaneous localization and mapping or large-scale point cloud assembly, where scale ambiguity and outlier correspondences are the dominant failure modes.
  • The reported ATE numbers are averages over scene groups; publishing per-sequence spreads would clarify whether the method's margin is consistent across scenes or driven by a few easy ones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unposed 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) reconstruction framework for hundreds of outdoor images. The method partitions images into overlapping subsets, runs a pretrained MVS model (VGGT) on each subset to obtain local point clouds and camera poses, then aligns all submaps into a global coordinate frame via a probabilistic Procrustes mapping. The alignment is initialized with a closed-form Kabsch–Umeyama Sim(3) solution and refined with entropy-regularized soft correspondences plus a dustbin mechanism for outlier rejection. A final stage jointly optimizes 3D Gaussians and camera poses through differentiable rendering with analytic Jacobians. Experiments on Waymo and KITTI report state-of-the-art pose accuracy (ATE) and image reconstruction metrics (PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS) compared with COLMAP-based, feed-forward, and unposed 3DGS baselines. The central claim is that the method removes the SfM bottleneck for large-scale unposed 3DGS while achieving accurate global alignment in minutes.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold under a proper evaluation protocol, the paper addresses a real scalability bottleneck: unposed 3DGS from hundreds of images with pretrained MVS models and divide-and-conquer alignment. The probabilistic Procrustes formulation and the analytic pose gradients are technically sensible, and the reported efficiency (minutes for global alignment) is potentially useful. The derivation is not circular in itself; it optimizes a well-defined objective on external MVS outputs. However, the current evaluation is training-view fitting rather than novel-view synthesis, and the headline numbers are internally inconsistent. Since the central claims depend on these numbers, the significance can only be assessed after the evaluation issues are resolved. The analytic Jacobian derivations in the appendices are a concrete strength that would help reproducibility if the full method were specified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (14)] Section 4.1 states 'All images are used for evaluation,' and Eq. (14) optimizes L1 and SSIM over exactly these images; consequently the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS values in Table 1 are training-set fit scores, not evidence of reconstruction or novel-view synthesis quality. The abstract and Section 4.2 claim 'accurate reconstruction' and 'new state of the art' on the strength of these numbers; please add a held-out split (or at least a train/test separation) and report both fitting and generalization metrics, or explicitly restate the claim as training-view fitting quality.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The Waymo row for 'Ours' differs across tables: Table 1 reports ATE 1.41, PSNR 31.53, SSIM 0.915, LPIPS 0.245, while Table 2 reports ATE 0.56, PSNR 32.72, SSIM 0.935, LPIPS 0.211. No explanation is given for the discrepancy, and the ablation row 'w/o Joint Opt.' (ATE 0.68) is already better than the Table 1 headline (ATE 1.41); the paper must specify the configuration for each table and reconcile these numbers, otherwise readers cannot determine which result is the claimed state of the art.
  3. [§3.2.2, Eq. (6)] The dustbin mechanism is claimed as a core contribution but is underspecified: η and b_dustbin = δ are introduced in the text, yet they do not appear in objective (6) or in the weight update (7), and the relationship between the dustbin marginal and the constraint Σ_l γ_l = 1 is not given. Please provide the complete optimization problem including the dustbin variable, its marginal constraint, and how δ is set.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (1), Limitations (§4.4)] Correspondences are built from a single shared frame (K=1) between adjacent 60-image groups, so the Procrustes alignment in Eq. (2) is only as good as the MVS depths and poses of that one overlapping frame; the paper acknowledges dependence on MVS quality in §4.4 but reports no sensitivity analysis for K, group size, or correspondence confidence. A robustness study varying K and group size is needed to support the claim of scalable and robust alignment for hundreds of images.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1 and 2] The paper does not report error bars or statistical significance; since the claims include small margins over baselines (e.g., PSNR 31.53 vs 30.17 for COLMAP+SPSG on Waymo), per-scene variance and run-to-run variance should be reported.
  2. [§3.2.2 and §3.3] The entropy regularization coefficient ε in Eq. (6) and the loss weight α in Eq. (14) are not given numerical values or ranges in the implementation details; please add them.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 2] The caption of Figure 2 states InstantSplat is trained on only 80 images, but Table 1 does not state this configuration; please clarify which rows correspond to 80 vs 200 images.
  4. [Throughout] The text alternates between 'Tab. 1' and 'Table 1', and between 'Mast3R' and 'MASt3R'; please standardize the notation and reference style.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The alignment and joint-optimization pipeline is not circular, but the reported reconstruction SOTA reduces to a training-set fit: PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS are computed on the same images that Eq. (14) optimizes.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Dataset and Metrics), Eq. (14), Table 1]
    "All images are used for evaluation. We assess both the image reconstruction quality and the accuracy of the estimated camera poses across entire sequences. ... Ltotal = α ∥ ˆIk − Ik∥1 + (1 − α)SSIM( ˆIk, Ik), where ˆIk denotes the rendered image under the current view k, Ik is the ground truth."

    The joint optimization in Eq. (14) minimizes exactly the L1 and SSIM terms against the ground-truth images Ik. Table 1 then reports PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on the same Ik used for that optimization, because Section 4.1 states 'All images are used for evaluation' with no held-out split. Thus the reported 'reconstruction quality' and the resulting state-of-the-art claim are measurements of training-set fitting, not predictions about unseen views: the metric coincides, by construction, with the objective being optimized (PSNR is a monotone function of the same L2/SSIM errors). Baselines are evaluated under the same protocol, so the ranking only demonstrates relative training-view fit. This undercuts the abstract's 'accurate reconstruction' and 'new state of the art' conclusions.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: submap alignment via probabilistic Procrustes solves a well-defined optimization over correspondences from a pretrained MVS model, and the joint 3DGS/pose refinement is a standard differentiable-rendering objective. I found no self-citation chains, no imported uniqueness theorems, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result. The only circularity is in the evaluation protocol: Section 4.1 says 'All images are used for evaluation,' while Eq. (14) optimizes Gaussians and camera poses against those same images, so the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS numbers in Table 1 are training-fit metrics rather than generalization metrics. Because the central SOTA claim rests on these numbers, this is a partially circular prediction under pattern 2. Separately, Table 1 and Table 2 report conflicting 'Ours' Waymo numbers (ATE 1.41 vs 0.56; PSNR 31.53 vs 32.72), which is a reproducibility concern rather than a circularity step. The Limitations section's acknowledgment of dependence on MVS quality is an honest external-dependency caveat and does not create circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the subset size, overlap, dustbin capacity, and various optimization hyperparameters, several of which are not reported. The load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of the pretrained MVS model and the validity of the pixel-projection correspondences.

free parameters (7)
  • group size (subset size) = 60
    Set empirically (Sec. 4.1) as best performing; not swept.
  • inter-group overlap K = 1
    Set empirically; with K=1 only one frame is shared between adjacent subsets.
  • dustbin capacity (max outlier fraction) = 20%
    Chosen by hand; controls the fraction of correspondences that can be rejected in the probabilistic mapping.
  • anchor point retention ratios = prune lowest 3%, keep 0.05%
    Heuristic hyperparameters for downsampling anchors for 3DGS initialization.
  • pose learning rate schedule = 10^-5 to 10^-7
    Given in Sec. 4.1, but no sensitivity analysis.
  • entropy regularization coefficient epsilon in Eq. (6) = not reported
    Needed for the weight update Eq. (7); value is missing.
  • rendering loss weight alpha in Eq. (14) = not reported
    L1 vs SSIM balance not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained MVS model (VGGT) produces locally accurate point clouds and poses within each subset.
    The entire pipeline starts from these submaps (Sec. 3.1); the paper's Limitations section concedes dependence on MVS quality.
  • domain assumption Correspondences defined by equal projected pixel location in overlapping frames correspond to the same physical 3D point.
    Eq. (1) builds C_ab on this premise; violated if local poses or depths are biased.
  • domain assumption 3D Gaussian Splatting rendering model (alpha-blending, Eq. 13) is an adequate scene representation for pose refinement.
    Used in the joint optimization loss Eq. (14).
  • standard math Standard matrix algebra and SVD for the Kabsch-Umeyama closed form.
    Eq. (5) relies on standard SVD properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unposed 3DGS Reconstruction with Probabilistic Procrustes Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5I3X4OZ

@misc{pith2026250718541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unposed 3DGS Reconstruction with Probabilistic Procrustes Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5I3X4OZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18541}
}
read the original abstract

3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has emerged as a core technique for 3D representation. Its effectiveness largely depends on precise camera poses and accurate point cloud initialization, which are often derived from pretrained Multi-View Stereo (MVS) models. However, in unposed reconstruction task from hundreds of outdoor images, existing MVS models may struggle with memory limits and lose accuracy as the number of input images grows. To address this limitation, we propose a novel unposed 3DGS reconstruction framework that integrates pretrained MVS priors with the probabilistic Procrustes mapping strategy. The method partitions input images into subsets, maps submaps into a global space, and jointly optimizes geometry and poses with 3DGS. Technically, we formulate the mapping of tens of millions of point clouds as a probabilistic Procrustes problem and solve a closed-form alignment. By employing probabilistic coupling along with a soft dustbin mechanism to reject uncertain correspondences, our method globally aligns point clouds and poses within minutes across hundreds of images. Moreover, we propose a joint optimization framework for 3DGS and camera poses. It constructs Gaussians from confidence-aware anchor points and integrates 3DGS differentiable rendering with an analytical Jacobian to jointly refine scene and poses, enabling accurate reconstruction and pose estimation. Experiments on Waymo and KITTI datasets show that our method achieves accurate reconstruction from unposed image sequences, setting a new state of the art for unposed 3DGS reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We begin by partitioning the unposed image sequence into multiple subsets, and apply a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative Comparison on Waymo (top three rows) and KITTI (bottom three rows). Methods marked with an asterisk (*) are reconstructed using 3DGS. InstantSplat is trained on only 80 images due to memory constraints. Our method achieves high-fidelity image reconstruction with clearer textures and finer details. of automatic differentiation and ensuring numerical stability during quaternion normalization. The resulting… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of reconstructed point clouds. The bottom row shows the estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of camera pose estimation. Red denotes estimated poses while gray denotes ground truth. Our method achieves superior pose accuracy compared to other methods. inaccurate pose estimation. Flare supports only a limited number of input view sizes. CO…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We have: ∂A ∂w = 2w p, ∂C ∂w = 2 (v × p)

    Derivative with respect to w Only A and C depend on w. We have: ∂A ∂w = 2w p, ∂C ∂w = 2 (v × p). (22) Therefore: ∂ (R(q) p) ∂w = 2 w p + 2 (v × p). (23)

    work page

  2. [2]

    We compute: ∂A ∂v = −2 (v⊤p) I3 = −2 p v⊤, (24) ∂B ∂v = 2 (v⊤p) I3 + 2 v p⊤, (25) ∂C ∂v = 2 w [p]×

    Derivative with respect to v Let [p]× denote the skew-symmetric matrix such that [p]×u = p × u. We compute: ∂A ∂v = −2 (v⊤p) I3 = −2 p v⊤, (24) ∂B ∂v = 2 (v⊤p) I3 + 2 v p⊤, (25) ∂C ∂v = 2 w [p]×. (26) Combining these terms yields: ∂ (R(q) p) ∂v = −2 p v⊤ + 2 (v⊤p) I3 + 2 v p⊤ + 2 w [p]×, (27)

    work page

  3. [3]

    (28) where the first column corresponds to ∂/∂w and the remaining three columns correspond to ∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z

    Assembling the 3 × 4 Jacobian Stacking the partial derivatives with respect to w and v produces the full Jacobian: ∂ (R(q) p) ∂q = 2w p + 2 (v × p)| {z } 3×1 −2 p v⊤ + 2 (v⊤p) I3 + 2 v p⊤ + 2 w [p]×| {z } 3×3 3×4 . (28) where the first column corresponds to ∂/∂w and the remaining three columns correspond to ∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z. This Jacobian can be directly ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Sufficient informa- tion is included to enable reproduction of all key results

    Experimental result reproducibility Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The paper provides complet...

    work page

  5. [5]

    0 −qk qj qk 0 −qi −qj qi 0 # µ, (31) ∂µc ∂qi = 2

    Gradients of the projected coordinate µ′ By chain rule, the derivative w.r.t. translation is ∂µ′ ∂t = J ∂µc ∂t = J =   fx zc 0 − fx xc z2c 0 fy zc − fy yc z2c   . (29) The derivative w.r.t. the quaternion is ∂µ′ ∂q = J ∂µc ∂q = J h ∂µc ∂qr ∂µc ∂qi ∂µc ∂qj ∂µc ∂qk i . (30) Here the 3 × 1 blocks ∂µc/∂qα are: ∂µc ∂qr = 2 " 0 −qk qj qk 0 −qi −qj qi 0 ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Gradients of the projected covariance Σ′ Since translation does not affect covariance: ∂Σ′ ∂t = 0. (35) For the quaternion: ∂Σ′ ∂q = J ∂ R Σw R⊤ ∂q J ⊤ = J ∂R ∂q Σw R⊤ + R Σw ∂R⊤ ∂q J ⊤, (36) where ∂R/∂q is the classic gradient of the rotation matrix with respect to the quaternion, and∂R⊤/∂q is its transpose. These closed-form derivatives enable efficient...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The claims are well-supported by theoretical analysis and experimental results

    Claims Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The abstract and introduction accurately summarize the contributions of the paper, including the proposed method, key technical insights, and empirical improvements. The claims are well-supported by...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Limitations

    Limitations Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The paper includes a dedicated Limitations section discussing assumptions, potential failure cases, and generalizability issues. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that th...

    work page

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results

    Theory assumptions and proofs Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? 16 Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper does not contain formal theoretical results or proofs. Guidelines: • The answer ...

  2. [10]

    Guidelines: 19 • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed

    Broader impacts Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The paper includes a Broader Impact section discussing potential societal applications of our 3D scene re...

  3. [11]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code

    Open access to data and code 17 Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The code and data will b...

  4. [12]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experimental setting/details Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We report experimental detail...

  5. [13]

    This approach is standard in the field and is sufficient to convey the performance of the methods under investigation

    Experiment statistical significance Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments? Answer: [No] Justification: The paper reports PSNR, SSIM, ATE, LPIPS, which are...

  6. [14]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiments compute resources Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We describe the computi...

  7. [15]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics

    Code of ethics Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We do not foresee any ethical concerns related to data usage, environmental imp...

  8. [16]

    Answer: [NA] Justification: LLMs were not used in the design or implementation of the core methods in the paper

    Declaration of LLM usage Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the ...

    2025

  9. [17]

    Safeguards Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper does ...

  10. [18]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets

    Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: All third-party ...

  11. [19]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets

    New assets Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets? Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper does not introduce new datasets or models requiring documentation. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that t...

  12. [20]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)? A...

  13. [21]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals...

  14. [2020]

    Jianing Yang, Alexander Sax, Kevin J

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07715. Jianing Yang, Alexander Sax, Kevin J. Liang, Mikael Henaff, Hao Tang, Ang Cao, Joyce Chai, Franziska Meier, and Matt Feiszli. Fast3r: Towards 3d reconstruction of 1000+ images in one forward pass. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference ...

    2001 arXiv

Pith tools

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