Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

CoProU-VO: Combining Projected Uncertainty for End-to-End Unsupervised Monocular Visual Odometry

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 Projecting uncertainty across frames sharpens unsupervised VO

desk verdict Cross-frame uncertainty propagation is a real and useful idea for unsupervised monocular VO, but the 'principled probabilistic' framing outruns the evidence and the empirical comparison set is thinner than the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00568 v1 pith:6KXPFMBQ submitted 2025-08-01 cs.CV

Jingchao Xie , Oussema Dhaouadi , Weirong Chen , Johannes Meier , Jacques Kaiser , Daniel Cremers This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords visualodometryunsupervisedlearninguncertaintyestimationphotometriclossdynamicscenesmonoculardepthvisiontransformerpose
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

CoProU-VO argues that unsupervised monocular visual odometry fails to suppress dynamic objects because uncertainty is predicted from one image only, even though the photometric error that supervises training compares two images. The central claim is that uncertainty must be propagated across time: the reference frame's uncertainty should be warped into the target view and combined with the target's own uncertainty. Under a Laplacian likelihood model the paper derives an effective uncertainty $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}(p_t)=\sqrt{\Sigma_t(p_t)^2+\Sigma_{t'\to t}(p_t)^2}$ and uses it to down-weight unreliable pixels in the photometric loss. Experiments on KITTI and nuScenes report consistent gains over the SC-Depth baseline, with the largest improvements at longer frame intervals. If the claim holds, a principled two-frame uncertainty combination is enough to make end-to-end unsupervised VO robust in dynamic scenes without any motion segmentation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the combined projected uncertainty, defined per pixel as $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}(p_t)=\sqrt{\Sigma_t(p_t)^2+\Sigma_{t'\to t}(p_t)^2}$, where $\Sigma_t$ is the network-predicted photometric uncertainty of the target frame and $\Sigma_{t'\to t}$ is the reference-frame uncertainty warped into the target view via predicted depth and pose. It operates inside the uncertainty-aware photometric loss (Eq. 7), dividing each pixel's photometric residual by $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and adding $\log \sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$, which reweights the loss so that pixels violating the static-scene assumption contribute less. Because the warping couples uncertainty to geometry, the mechanism also provides gradient flow from the mask to depth and pose estimation, making the model projection-aware.

What would settle it

A concrete check: take a trained model and a video with a known moving object, then corrupt the predicted depth inside that object's region while keeping its appearance unchanged; if the combined uncertainty mask stops covering the object's true projection area, the projected-uncertainty mechanism is shown to depend on depth and pose accuracy rather than on detecting residual violations. Alternatively, compare the model's uncertainty mask against a ground-truth dynamic-object segmentation on a sequence with many objects moving parallel to the camera; the paper's own Appendix C predicts those objects receive low uncertainty, which would falsify the robustness claim in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Photometric uncertainty in unsupervised VO is usually predicted per frame and applied only to the target image. The paper's discovery is that the supervision signal, the photometric residual between the target and the synthesized reference, contains noise from both images, so the reference's uncertainty must be warped into the target frame and combined. Treating both pixel intensities as independent Laplace random variables with scales $\Sigma_t$ and $\Sigma_{t'\to t}$, the residual is modeled as zero-mean Laplacian with effective scale $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{\Sigma_t^2+\Sigma_{t'\to t}^2}$, and using this scale in the loss makes the network discount regions where either frame is unreliable. The projected uncertainty is computed by bilinear sampling of the reference uncertainty map, conditioned on predicted depth and pose, so the mask becomes geometry-aware and gradients flow from the uncertainty through the warping to pose and depth. On KITTI odometry and nuScenes, CoProU-VO outperforms single-uncertainty baselines and maintains real-time inference through a lightweight pose network. The paper frames this as closing a conceptual gap: previous work reused a supervised-learning uncertainty trick without acknowledging that the synthesized image is also uncertain.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the photometric residual at each pixel is a zero-mean Laplacian random variable whose spread is the Euclidean combination of the target uncertainty and the warped reference uncertainty; this alignment holds only where the predicted depth and pose are accurate, which is exactly uncertain in the dynamic and low-texture regions the method targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-frame unsupervised VO becomes robust to dynamic objects and occlusions without any semantic or motion segmentation, since the combined mask suppresses the offending pixels during training.
  • Because the combination rule is dataset-agnostic, the same $\sqrt{\Sigma_t^2+\Sigma_{t'\to t}^2}$ formulation should transfer to longer temporal baselines, where the paper reports the largest relative gains.
  • The uncertainty mask becomes projection-aware: regions that are unreliable in either frame, including occluded areas and non-Lambertian surfaces, are down-weighted instead of only regions the target frame labels as uncertain.
  • The pose network can be trained end-to-end with the uncertainty, yielding pose estimates that are informed by where the photometric supervision is trustworthy.
  • The method's independence of the pose network at inference keeps real-time operation, since only the lightweight pose network is run.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sqrt-sum-of-squares rule is exactly what independent-variance combination would give for two noisy observations, so the method could be extended to fuse uncertainty across more than two frames by accumulating projected uncertainties; the paper only considers pairs.
  • Appendix C admits the method fails when dynamic objects move with the camera or keep low photometric residual, so a testable implication is that the combined uncertainty is bounded by what photometric residual can reveal, and scenes with many co-moving objects will still escape the mask.
  • One could test the mechanism in isolation by freezing depth and pose and checking whether the predicted uncertainty correlates with actual per-pixel residual magnitude; the paper does not quantify this alignment.
  • The same warping-based uncertainty combination could be applied to any differentiable photometric loss, including stereo or multi-view losses, not just to two-frame VO.
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. CoProU-VO proposes a fully unsupervised two-frame monocular visual odometry method. Given a target and a reference image, it predicts depth, per-pixel photometric uncertainty, and relative pose; it warps the reference-frame uncertainty into the target frame, combines it with the target-frame uncertainty via the root-sum-of-squares rule in Eq. (6), and uses the combined uncertainty to down-weight the photometric loss in Eq. (7). The paper claims that this cross-frame propagated uncertainty better masks dynamic objects and other violations of the static-scene assumption than single-image uncertainty, and it reports improved ATE and RPE on KITTI and nuScenes, with ablations that separate the CoProU effect from the Vision Transformer backbone change. The appendix candidly lists limitations, including larger rotation errors, failure on low-residual moving objects, and scale ambiguity.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the method is a practical contribution: it is end-to-end, real-time at inference (only the lightweight PoseNet is used), and the code is publicly available. The ablation isolating CoProU from the backbone change is well designed, and the supplementary provides useful uncertainty visualizations and explicit failure cases. The main weakness is that the probabilistic derivation behind Eq. (6) is approximate and not empirically calibrated; the paper's own Appendix C indicates that the uncertainty mask can discard geometrically informative near-range pixels, so the 'principled' formulation needs qualification. With a clarified derivation and a sensitivity analysis, the contribution would be solid and suitable for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2) and Eq. (6)] The paper does not specify how Sigma_{t'->t} is computed from Sigma_{t'} under bilinear warping. Since the synthesized intensity in Eq. (2) is a weighted sum of four reference pixels, the standard deviation of that synthesized intensity is not generally the bilinearly interpolated value of Sigma_{t'}; even under pixel independence, Var(sum_i w_i X_i) = sum_i w_i^2 Var(X_i), not (sum_i w_i Sigma_i)^2. Please state the exact computation of Sigma_{t'->t}, or explicitly reclassify Eq. (6) as a heuristic combination rather than an exact variance-propagation result.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)-(4), Appendix E] The photometric residual r is a weighted combination of SSIM and L1 over a patch, yet Eq. (4) models it as a zero-mean Laplacian random variable with scale sigma_eff. This is an approximation that should be stated more prominently as a modeling choice, and it should be accompanied by an empirical calibration check (for example, plotting the distribution of residuals against the predicted sigma_eff). Without such evidence, the abstract's claim of a 'principled probabilistic formulation' is stronger than the derivation supports.
  3. [Appendix C] The reported rotation-error limitation, where higher uncertainty assigned to near-range pixels down-weights valuable geometric information, is direct evidence that sigma_eff can be misaligned with the true noise of the photometric residual. Please add a quantitative sensitivity analysis: for instance, report rotation error broken down by depth range, compare against a fixed or oracle mask, or show that the combined uncertainty correlates with actual residual magnitudes. This would test whether Eq. (6) is tracking noise or merely acting as a learned mask.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The notation 'T_{t->t'} in SE...' contains a rendering artifact; it should read 'T_{t->t'} in SE(3)'.
  2. [Equation (3)] The balance coefficient alpha is not explicitly bounded; please state alpha in [0,1].
  3. [Appendix F] The disparity-to-depth conversion parameters a and b are said to constrain D to a range of [0.1, 100] units, but their actual values are not reported; please provide them for reproducibility.
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] The main tables would benefit from error bars or multiple-seed results, particularly for the nuScenes comparisons where the differences between methods are small.
  5. [Related Work] Reference [18] is listed but not discussed in the text; please either cite it in the uncertainty-related discussion or remove it from the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CoProU's combined uncertainty is a per-pixel network output trained by self-supervision, and the reported pose metrics are independent of the uncertainty estimates.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (Eqs. 1-7 and Appendix E) defines the photometric residual likelihood with effective scale σeff(pt)=sqrt(Σt(pt)^2+Σt'→t(pt)^2). This is an approximation (independent Laplace pixel intensities, variance-matched combination) rather than a circular reduction: σeff is produced by a learned decoder, and the uncertainty is not a parameter fitted to the evaluation metrics (ATE/RPE). The projected reference uncertainty Σt'→t is obtained by warping the reference-frame uncertainty with the predicted depth and pose, which couples uncertainty to the geometry being trained; this is architectural self-supervision, not an input-output equivalence. Appendix C's admission that near-range pixels receive high uncertainty and cause larger rotation errors, and Appendix G's low-residual dynamic-object failures, are calibration and robustness limitations, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears: D3VO and AnyCAM citations are background and baselines, and the DepthAnythingV2 backbone is external pretraining. The method is evaluated against independent benchmarks (KITTI and nuScenes), so no claimed prediction reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four classes of assumptions: the standard static-scene photometric consistency prior, the per-pixel Laplacian noise model with variance-matching combination, the geometric alignment of the warped uncertainty using predicted depth and pose, and the transferability of DepthAnythingV2 features. No new physical entities are introduced and no global scalar is fitted to the reported results; the only hand-set numbers are standard loss weights, SSIM constants, and the disparity-to-depth conversion range.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (SSIM-L1 balance) = Reported in Appendix F training settings
    Hand-set tradeoff in the photometric residual of Eq. (3); standard value from prior work.
  • a, b in disparity-to-depth conversion D = 1/(a*x + b) = Chosen to constrain depth to [0.1, 100] units
    Hand-chosen constants in Appendix F scale predicted disparity to a depth range; they set the trajectory scale and are not learned from data.
  • Loss weights w_p, w_g, w_s = Values reported in Appendix F
    Hand-selected weights in the total training loss, common for SC-Depth-style training.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Static scene assumption: photometric residual between target and synthesized reference is zero for static, Lambertian pixels and can supervise geometry.
    Introduced in Section 1 and Figure 1 as the foundation of the unsupervised photometric loss.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-pixel independent Laplacian noise and zero-mean residual near the optimum, with effective scale sigma_eff = sqrt(Sigma_t^2 + Sigma_{t'->t}^2).
    Section 3.2 Eqs. (4)-(6) and Appendix E: the paper approximates the residual likelihood as Laplacian and combines uncertainties by variance matching; this is a modeling choice, not an exact result for the difference of two Laplacians.
  • domain assumption The projected reference uncertainty Sigma_{t'->t} obtained by bilinear sampling faithfully represents the noise of the synthesized image.
    Section 3.1 uses Eqs. (1)-(2) to warp Sigma_{t'}; alignment depends on predicted depth and pose being accurate enough in dynamic scenes.
  • domain assumption DepthAnythingV2 ViT-S features transfer to KITTI and nuScenes and provide suitable depth and uncertainty features despite synthetic-label pretraining.
    Section 2.2 and Appendix F: the backbone is frozen and assumed transferable; its synthetic-label pretraining is not real-world labeled but is still a form of supervision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoProU-VO: Combining Projected Uncertainty for End-to-End Unsupervised Monocular Visual Odometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KXPFMBQ

@misc{pith2026250800568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoProU-VO: Combining Projected Uncertainty for End-to-End Unsupervised Monocular Visual Odometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KXPFMBQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00568}
}
read the original abstract

Visual Odometry (VO) is fundamental to autonomous navigation, robotics, and augmented reality, with unsupervised approaches eliminating the need for expensive ground-truth labels. However, these methods struggle when dynamic objects violate the static scene assumption, leading to erroneous pose estimations. We tackle this problem by uncertainty modeling, which is a commonly used technique that creates robust masks to filter out dynamic objects and occlusions without requiring explicit motion segmentation. Traditional uncertainty modeling considers only single-frame information, overlooking the uncertainties across consecutive frames. Our key insight is that uncertainty must be propagated and combined across temporal frames to effectively identify unreliable regions, particularly in dynamic scenes. To address this challenge, we introduce Combined Projected Uncertainty VO (CoProU-VO), a novel end-to-end approach that combines target frame uncertainty with projected reference frame uncertainty using a principled probabilistic formulation. Built upon vision transformer backbones, our model simultaneously learns depth, uncertainty estimation, and camera poses. Consequently, experiments on the KITTI and nuScenes datasets demonstrate significant improvements over previous unsupervised monocular end-to-end two-frame-based methods and exhibit strong performance in challenging highway scenes where other approaches often fail. Additionally, comprehensive ablation studies validate the effectiveness of cross-frame uncertainty propagation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Bangunharcana, A., Magd, A., Kim, K.S.: Dualrefine: Self-supervised depth and pose estimation through iterative epipolar sampling and refinement toward equilib- rium. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 726–738 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) (2021)

    Bian, J.W., Zhan, H., Wang, N., Li, Z., Zhang, L., Shen, C., Cheng, M.M., Reid, I.: Unsupervised scale-consistent depth learning from video. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    In: CVPR (2020)

    Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Liong, V.E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., Beijbom, O.: nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: CVPR (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    IEEE transactions on robotics37(6), 1874–1890 (2021)

    Campos, C., Elvira, R., Rodríguez, J.J.G., Montiel, J.M., Tardós, J.D.: Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE transactions on robotics37(6), 1874–1890 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Caron, M., Touvron, H., Misra, I., Jégou, H., Mairal, J., Bojanowski, P., Joulin, A.: Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 9650–9660 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2023)

    Chen, C., Wang, B., Lu, C.X., Trigoni, N., Markham, A.: Deep learning for visual localization and mapping: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems24(3), 3157–3166 (2022)

    Dai, J., Gong, X., Li, Y., Wang, J., Wei, M.: Self-supervised deep visual odometry based on geometric attention model. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems24(3), 3157–3166 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16588 (2023)

    Darcet, T., Oquab, M., Mairal, J., Bojanowski, P.: Vision transformers need reg- isters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16588 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Dikov, G., Van Vugt, J.: Variational depth networks: Uncertainty-aware monocular self-supervised depth estimation. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 43–60. Springer (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence40(3), 611–625 (2017)

    Engel, J., Koltun, V., Cremers, D.: Direct sparse odometry. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence40(3), 611–625 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Feng, Z., Yang, L., Jing, L., Wang, H., Tian, Y., Li, B.: Disentangling object motion and occlusion for unsupervised multi-frame monocular depth. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 228–244. Springer (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    The international journal of robotics research32(11), 1231–1237 (2013)

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Stiller, C., Urtasun, R.: Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The international journal of robotics research32(11), 1231–1237 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR) (2012)

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., Urtasun, R.: Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR) (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF in- ternational conference on computer vision

    Godard, C., Mac Aodha, O., Firman, M., Brostow, G.J.: Digging into self- supervised monocular depth estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF in- ternational conference on computer vision. pp. 3828–3838 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016) 26 Xie et al

    2016

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 (2015)

    Hinton, G., Vinyals, O., Dean, J.: Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    Ilg, E., Cicek, O., Galesso, S., Klein, A., Makansi, O., Hutter, F., Brox, T.: Uncer- tainty estimates and multi-hypotheses networks for optical flow. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). pp. 652–667 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

    Jaderberg, M., Simonyan, K., Zisserman, A., et al.: Spatial transformer networks. Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Kendall, A., Gal, Y.: What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Klodt, M., Vedaldi, A.: Supervising the new with the old: learning sfm from sfm. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 698–713 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Leroy, V., Cabon, Y., Revaud, J.: Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 71–91. Springer (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

    Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vi- sion

    Marsal, R., Chabot, F., Loesch, A., Grolleau, W., Sahbi, H.: Monoprob: self- supervised monocular depth estimation with interpretable uncertainty. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vi- sion. pp. 3637–3646 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    IEEE transactions on robotics31(5), 1147–1163 (2015)

    Mur-Artal, R., Montiel, J.M.M., Tardos, J.D.: Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system. IEEE transactions on robotics31(5), 1147–1163 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    IEEE transactions on robotics33(5), 1255–1262 (2017)

    Mur-Artal, R., Tardós, J.D.: Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monoc- ular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. IEEE transactions on robotics33(5), 1255–1262 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research Journal pp

    Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A., et al.: Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. Transactions on Machine Learning Research Journal pp. 1–31 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition

    Poggi, M., Aleotti, F., Tosi, F., Mattoccia, S.: On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition. pp. 3227–3237 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    In: International conference on machine learning

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

    2021

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Ranftl, R., Bochkovskiy, A., Koltun, V.: Vision transformers for dense prediction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 12179–12188 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    In: 2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Wang,C.,Zhang,G.,Zhou,W.:Self-supervisedlearningofmonocularvisualodom- etry and depth with uncertainty-aware scale consistency. In: 2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3984–3990. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025)

    Wang, J., Chen, M., Karaev, N., Vedaldi, A., Rupprecht, C., Novotny, D.: Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wang, S., Leroy, V., Cabon, Y., Chidlovskii, B., Revaud, J.: Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 20697–20709 (2024) CoProU-VO 27

    2024

  26. [34]

    IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR)

    Wimbauer, F., Chen, W., Muhle, D., Rupprecht, C., Cremers, D.: Anycam: Learn- ing to recover camera poses and intrinsics from casual videos. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR). pp. 16717–16727 (June 2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Yang, L., Kang, B., Huang, Z., Xu, X., Feng, J., Zhao, H.: Depth anything: Un- leashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 10371–10381 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 21875–21911 (2024)

    Yang, L., Kang, B., Huang, Z., Zhao, Z., Xu, X., Feng, J., Zhao, H.: Depth anything v2. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 21875–21911 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yang,N.,Stumberg,L.v.,Wang,R.,Cremers,D.:D3vo:Deepdepth,deepposeand deep uncertainty for monocular visual odometry. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1281–1292 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Yang,N.,Wang,R.,Stuckler,J.,Cremers,D.: Deepvirtualstereoodometry:Lever- aging deep depth prediction for monocular direct sparse odometry. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 817–833 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition

    Yin, Z., Shi, J.: Geonet: Unsupervised learning of dense depth, optical flow and camera pose. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition. pp. 1983–1992 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Intelligent Industrial Systems 1(4), 289–311 (2015)

    Yousif, K., Bab-Hadiashar, A., Hoseinnezhad, R.: An overview to visual odometry and visual slam: Applications to mobile robotics. Intelligent Industrial Systems 1(4), 289–311 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhan, H., Garg, R., Weerasekera, C.S., Li, K., Agarwal, H., Reid, I.: Unsupervised learning of monocular depth estimation and visual odometry with deep feature reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 340–349 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Zhan, H., Weerasekera, C.S., Bian, J.W., Reid, I.: Visual odometry revisited: What should be learnt? In: 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automa- tion (ICRA). pp. 4203–4210. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arxiv:2410.03825 (2024)

    Zhang, J., Herrmann, C., Hur, J., Jampani, V., Darrell, T., Cole, F., Sun, D., Yang, M.H.: Monst3r: A simple approach for estimating geometry in the presence of motion. arXiv preprint arxiv:2410.03825 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Tao, D.: Towards scale consistent monocular visual odometry by learning from the virtual world. In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5601–5607. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Zhang, Z., Cole, F., Li, Z., Rubinstein, M., Snavely, N., Freeman, W.T.: Structure and motion from casual videos. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 20–37. Springer (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2025)

    Zhou, K., Bian, J.W., Zheng, J.Q., Zhong, J., Xie, Q., Trigoni, N., Markham, A.: Manydepth2: Motion-aware self-supervised monocular depth estimation in dy- namic scenes. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhou, T., Brown, M., Snavely, N., Lowe, D.G.: Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1851–1858 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Zou, Y., Ji, P., Tran, Q.H., Huang, J.B., Chandraker, M.: Learning monocular visual odometry via self-supervised long-term modeling. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 710–727. Springer (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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