Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 58 references

Reconstruction Using the Invisible: Intuition from NIR and Metadata for Enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Near-infrared imagery plus plant-health metadata improves 3D reconstruction of agricultural scenes, according to the NIRSplat architecture and the new NIRPlant dataset.

desk verdict NIRPlant is the real contribution; the architecture's superiority claim is unverifiable from the supplied text and needs same-input baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14443 v1 pith:ON47IW7G submitted 2025-08-20 cs.CV

Gyusam Chang , Tuan-Anh Vu , Vivek Alumootil , Harris Song , Deanna Pham , Sangpil Kim , M. Khalid Jawed This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingnear-infraredimagingagriculturalreconstructionmultimodalfusioncross-attentionvegetationindicesNIRdatasetNDVI
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 argues that 3D Gaussian splatting, though strong in general scenes, struggles in agriculture because visible light alone is unreliable under uneven lighting, heavy occlusion, and narrow camera views. It introduces NIRPlant, a dataset pairing RGB images with near-infrared imagery, depth, LiDAR, and vegetation-index text metadata, and NIRSplat, a Gaussian splatting model that fuses NIR features and vegetation-index metadata into the 3D representation through cross-attention with 3D point-based positional encoding. The central claim is that this extra-spectral conditioning makes reconstruction more accurate than RGB-only 3DGS and two prior splatting variants on the authors' agricultural scenes. A sympathetic reader would care because successful reconstruction in farms would enable practical field robotics, phenotyping, and crop monitoring in conditions where visible-light images are at their worst.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a cross-attention module that fuses NIR image features and text-derived vegetation-index metadata with 3D point-based positional encodings. The 3D positions of the Gaussians are encoded and used to attend to the NIR and metadata features, producing geometric priors that steer where and how each Gaussian is placed. The vegetation indices enter as textual metadata, so the network conditions on physiological properties of the plants rather than only their reflected visible color.

What would settle it

Run NIRSplat and a plain RGB-only 3DGS on an independently captured farm scene with different crops, weather, and daylight, using the released code and dataset format; if NIRSplat shows no consistent quality margin over RGB-only 3DGS, the central claim is falsified. A second decisive test: deliberately shift the NIR frames by a few pixels relative to RGB and check whether the reconstruction gains vanish, which would show the fusion depends on precise alignment rather than on the metadata alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that combining near-infrared imagery with vegetation-index metadata—NDVI, NDWI, and chlorophyll index—conditions a 3D Gaussian Splatting reconstruction so strongly that it outperforms 3DGS, CoR-GS, and InstantSplat on their NIRPlant scenes. The discovery is two-sided: a new public benchmark with aligned NIR, RGB, depth, LiDAR, and textual metadata under varied indoor and outdoor lighting, and an architecture that uses cross-attention over 3D point encodings to fold those modalities into the Gaussian attributes. If the claim holds, it means the path to better farm-scene reconstruction is not just more visible-light data but deliberately bringing invisible-spectrum and physiol

Load-bearing premise

The performance claim depends on the authors' own NIRPlant scenes standing in for agricultural conditions generally, and on the RGB and NIR views being accurately aligned; neither is verified outside the authors' capture setup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agricultural 3D reconstruction can move beyond RGB-only methods: near-infrared becomes a viable, standard additional channel for Gaussian splatting.
  • Vegetation-index metadata can act as conditioning signals, making reconstructed geometry sensitive to plant health and moisture content, not just color.
  • The NIRPlant dataset gives the community a multimodal benchmark for testing future reconstruction methods under poor lighting, occlusion, and narrow field of view.
  • If the gains hold, greenhouse and field robots could reconstruct rows, leaves, and fruits more reliably from sensors that already capture NIR, without extra infrastructure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This is an inference beyond the paper: the same cross-attention fusion may transfer to thermal imaging or multispectral satellite imagery for forestry and disaster scenes, where visible light is similarly unreliable.
  • The paper bundles NIR pixels and vegetation-index metadata into one architecture; a plausible reading is that much of the gain comes from the metadata acting as a regularizer, so an ablation that feeds metadata into RGB-only 3DGS would isolate the true source.
  • A testable extension of the paper's logic is temporal crop monitoring: conditioning on NDVI time series across growth stages could tie reconstruction quality directly to plant phenology, which the current indoor/outdoor static captures do not yet demonstrate.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NIRPlant, a multimodal agriculture dataset with RGB, NIR, depth, LiDAR, and textual metadata derived from vegetation indices (NDVI, NDWI, chlorophyll), and NIRSplat, a 3D Gaussian Splatting architecture that fuses NIR image features and vegetation-index metadata via a cross-attention mechanism and 3D point-based positional encoding. The abstract claims that NIRSplat outperforms 3DGS, CoR-GS, and InstantSplat on challenging agricultural scenes, and that code and data are publicly released. The full text as provided is heavily corrupted (mojibake), so the experimental sections, tables, ablations, and implementation details could not be read or audited.

Significance. If substantiated, this would be a useful contribution to agricultural 3D reconstruction: NIRPlant could serve as a benchmark for multimodal reconstruction, and NIRSplat would demonstrate that non-visible spectral information and vegetation-index metadata improve reconstruction under uneven illumination and occlusion. The release of code and data is commendable and would support reproducibility. However, the central empirical claim is asserted without numerical support in the abstract, and the body text is unreadable in the provided manuscript, so the significance cannot currently be assessed beyond the proposal itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Section 4 (tables)] The load-bearing claim that NIRSplat outperforms 3DGS, CoR-GS, and InstantSplat is made without a single quantitative result in the abstract. The full text I received is corrupted mojibake, so I could not audit the tables, the metric definitions (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS, etc.), baseline configurations, or training protocols. Without readable experimental evidence, the comparative claim is unverifiable. Please provide a clean manuscript with complete tables and clear evaluation statistics.
  2. [Abstract / Section 3 (architecture)] The comparison appears to suffer from a modality confound: NIRSplat receives NIR imagery and vegetation-index metadata, while the named baselines are RGB-only methods. The current abstract provides no ablation of NIRSplat using only RGB, nor any same-input baseline, so the reported gains could be due solely to the extra spectral channels rather than to the cross-attention mechanism and 3D point-based positional encoding. To support the architectural claim, the experiments must isolate the contribution of the fusion design from the contribution of the additional modalities.
  3. [Abstract / Dataset] Evaluation is conducted only on NIRPlant, a dataset collected by the authors. This makes the benchmark both the contribution and the testbed, so there is no external yardstick for the claim about 'challenging agricultural scenarios' generally. The paper should either evaluate on at least one independent agricultural reconstruction dataset or carefully restrict the claims to the specific capture conditions and justify that NIRPlant is representative of the stated challenges. The abstract's generalization is currently not supported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Full text] The submitted manuscript text is not readable; it consists mainly of replacement characters and corrupted encodings. This is not a stylistic issue but a severe presentation problem that must be fixed by uploading a clean PDF or source file.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'textual metadata derived from vegetation indices' is misleading: NDVI, NDWI, and chlorophyll indices are numeric vegetation indices, not text. Clarify the type of metadata and how it is represented in the model.
  3. [Full text header] The visible arXiv header in the corrupted text reads 'arXiv:2508.14442v1 [cs.HC] 20 Aug 2025', which does not match the claimed paper identifier (2508.14443, cs.CV). Please verify that the correct PDF was submitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the superiority claim is an empirical benchmark result, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is comparative and empirical: NIRSplat, which consumes NIR/RGB imagery plus vegetation-index metadata, is reported to outperform RGB-only baselines on the authors' NIRPlant dataset. This is a measured benchmark claim, not a derivation in which an output quantity is defined as an input quantity. The fact that NIRPlant is an author-collected dataset is a limitation for external generalization, but it is not circular: the reported metrics are not constructed from the model's inputs. Similarly, the vegetation indices (NDVI, NDWI, chlorophyll index) are derived from the imagery itself, making the metadata partially redundant or confounded, but this does not make the comparison circular—no parameter is fitted to the target metric and then renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked. The provided full text is heavily corrupted, so no specific equation-level reduction could be identified. On the readable abstract, the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on three kinds of unpaid-for premises: the suitability of 3DGS as a backbone, the informativeness of NIR and vegetation-index features for geometry, and the representativeness of the self-collected NIRPlant dataset plus the fairness of its baseline protocol. No fitted physical constants appear in the abstract; the only fitted quantities are the network hyperparameters, whose values are unknown at this level. The dataset and architecture are new artifacts but are both released publicly, which is the main independent handle for checking the claims.

free parameters (1)
  • Fusion and training hyperparameters (cross-attention dimensions, positional encoding scale, loss weights)
    Not reported in the abstract. The architecture relies on tuned hyperparameters whose values are presumably in the body, which was unreadable in this review.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 3D Gaussian Splatting is a suitable reconstruction backbone for agricultural scenes; the 3DGS pipeline is taken as given.
    The method is built on 3DGS without re-deriving or questioning it. Invoked implicitly by the abstract's framing of NIRSplat as a Gaussian splatting architecture.
  • domain assumption NIR imagery and vegetation-index metadata carry information complementary to RGB that improves 3D reconstruction robustness.
    This is the premise of the entire method. The abstract asserts it but does not show an ablation isolating the NIR or metadata contribution.
  • domain assumption The NIRPlant dataset is representative of 'challenging agricultural scenarios' beyond its own capture sessions.
    The evaluation and the generalization claim rest entirely on this self-collected dataset; no external dataset is named in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Baselines (3DGS, CoR-GS, InstantSplat) were trained and evaluated under the same protocol with the same metrics.
    Required for the claimed outperformance to be meaningful. Unverifiable from the abstract, and the corrupted body prevented checking the protocol.
  • domain assumption RGB and NIR sensors are spatially and temporally registered on the capture rig so that cross-modal fusion is meaningful.
    Cross-attention between NIR features and 3D points assumes pixel-level alignment between the two cameras. Not stated in the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • NIRPlant dataset independent evidence
    purpose: Multimodal agricultural benchmark (RGB, NIR, depth, LiDAR, text metadata) used for both training and evaluation; it is the testbed for the central claim.
    The abstract states the dataset is publicly released, so other groups can evaluate on it. The release itself could not be verified in this review.
  • NIRSplat architecture independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed architecture fusing NIR imagery and metadata with 3D Gaussian Splatting via cross-attention and point-based positional encoding; the subject of the performance claim.
    Code is stated to be public, giving an external check. No commit hash or artifact inventory is given in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstruction Using the Invisible: Intuition from NIR and Metadata for Enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ON47IW7G

@misc{pith2026250814443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstruction Using the Invisible: Intuition from NIR and Metadata for Enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ON47IW7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14443}
}
read the original abstract

While 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has rapidly advanced, its application in agriculture remains underexplored. Agricultural scenes present unique challenges for 3D reconstruction methods, particularly due to uneven illumination, occlusions, and a limited field of view. To address these limitations, we introduce \textbf{NIRPlant}, a novel multimodal dataset encompassing Near-Infrared (NIR) imagery, RGB imagery, textual metadata, Depth, and LiDAR data collected under varied indoor and outdoor lighting conditions. By integrating NIR data, our approach enhances robustness and provides crucial botanical insights that extend beyond the visible spectrum. Additionally, we leverage text-based metadata derived from vegetation indices, such as NDVI, NDWI, and the chlorophyll index, which significantly enriches the contextual understanding of complex agricultural environments. To fully exploit these modalities, we propose \textbf{NIRSplat}, an effective multimodal Gaussian splatting architecture employing a cross-attention mechanism combined with 3D point-based positional encoding, providing robust geometric priors. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that \textbf{NIRSplat} outperforms existing landmark methods, including 3DGS, CoR-GS, and InstantSplat, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging agricultural scenarios. The code and dataset are publicly available at: https://github.com/StructuresComp/3D-Reconstruction-NIR

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Alayrac, J.-B.; Donahue, J.; Luc, P.; Miech, A.; Barr, I.; Hasson, Y.; Lenc, K.; Mensch, A.; Millican, K.; Reynolds, M.; et al. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 23716--23736

    2022

  4. [4]

    T.; Mildenhall, B.; Tancik, M.; Hedman, P.; Martin-Brualla, R.; and Srinivasan, P

    Barron, J. T.; Mildenhall, B.; Tancik, M.; Hedman, P.; Martin-Brualla, R.; and Srinivasan, P. P. 2021. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 5855--5864

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    T.; Mildenhall, B.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P

    Barron, J. T.; Mildenhall, B.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P. P.; and Hedman, P. 2022. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 5470--5479

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Bian, W.; Wang, Z.; Li, K.; Bian, J.-W.; and Prisacariu, V. A. 2023. Nope-nerf: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4160--4169

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Chen, S.; Li, Y.; and Zhang, G. 2025. OpticFusion: Multi-Modal Neural Implicit 3D Reconstruction of Microstructures by Fusing White Light Interferometry and Optical Microscopy. In Proceedings of International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    G.; and Gui, L.-Y

    Cheng, Y.-C.; Lee, H.-Y.; Tulyakov, S.; Schwing, A. G.; and Gui, L.-Y. 2023. Sdfusion: Multimodal 3d shape completion, reconstruction, and generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 4456--4465

    work page 2023

Show all 58 references
  1. [10]

    Fan, Z.; Wen, K.; Cong, W.; Wang, K.; Zhang, J.; Ding, X.; Xu, D.; Ivanovic, B.; Pavone, M.; Pavlakos, G.; et al. 2024 b . InstantSplat: Sparse-view SfM-free Gaussian Splatting in Seconds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20309

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    A.; and Wang, X

    Fu, Y.; Liu, S.; Kulkarni, A.; Kautz, J.; Efros, A. A.; and Wang, X. 2024. Colmap-free 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20796--20805

    2024

  3. [12]

    J.; Kowalski, M.; Johnson, M.; Shotton, J.; and Valentin, J

    Garbin, S. J.; Kowalski, M.; Johnson, M.; Shotton, J.; and Valentin, J. 2021. Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 14346--14355

    2021

  4. [13]

    Godard, C.; Mac Aodha, O.; and Brostow, G. J. 2017. Unsupervised monocular depth estimation with left-right consistency. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 270--279

    2017

  5. [14]

    Godard, C.; Mac Aodha, O.; Firman, M.; and Brostow, G. J. 2019. Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 3828--3838

    2019

  6. [15]

    Hao, J.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Pan, W.; Chen, R.; Xiong, H.; Sun, K.; Lin, H.; Liu, W.; Ding, W.; et al. 2022. AI-enabled Automatic Multimodal Fusion of Cone-beam CT and Intraoral Scans for Intelligent 3D Tooth-bone Reconstruction and Clinical Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05784

    2022 arXiv

  7. [16]

    In Lee, D.; Park, H.; Seo, J.; Park, E.; Park, H.; Dam Baek, H.; Sangheon, S.; Kim, S.; et al. 2024. EditSplat: Multi-View Fusion and Attention-Guided Optimization for View-Consistent 3D Scene Editing with 3D Gaussian Splatting. arXiv e-prints, arXiv--2412

    2024

  8. [17]

    Izadi, S.; Kim, D.; Hilliges, O.; Molyneaux, D.; Newcombe, R.; Kohli, P.; Shotton, J.; Hodges, S.; Freeman, D.; Davison, A.; et al. 2011. Kinectfusion: real-time 3d reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on U...

    2011

  9. [18]

    Kerbl, B.; Kopanas, G.; Leimk \"u hler, T.; and Drettakis, G. 2023. 3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4)

    2023

  10. [19]

    Knapitsch, A.; Park, J.; Zhou, Q.-Y.; and Koltun, V. 2017. Tanks and Temples: Benchmarking Large-Scale Scene Reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4)

    2017

  11. [20]

    H.; Li, Y.; Ke, J.; Yoo, I.; Zhang, H.; Yu, J.; Wang, Q.; Deng, F.; Entis, G.; He, J.; et al

    Lee, S. H.; Li, Y.; Ke, J.; Yoo, I.; Zhang, H.; Yu, J.; Wang, Q.; Deng, F.; Entis, G.; He, J.; et al. 2024. Parrot: Pareto-optimal multi-reward reinforcement learning framework for text-to-image generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 462--478. Springer

    2024

  12. [21]

    Leroy, V.; Cabon, Y.; and Revaud, J. 2024 a . Grounding Image Matching in 3D with MASt3R . In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 71–91

    2024

  13. [22]

    Leroy, V.; Cabon, Y.; and Revaud, J. 2024 b . Grounding Image Matching in 3D with MASt3R. arXiv:2406.09756

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Savarese, S.; and Hoi, S. 2023 a . Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, 19730--19742. PMLR

    2023

  15. [24]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Xiong, C.; and Hoi, S. 2022 a . Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International conference on machine learning, 12888--12900. PMLR

    2022

  16. [25]

    H.; and Prisacariu, V

    Li, K.; Bian, J.-W.; Castle, R.; Torr, P. H.; and Prisacariu, V. A. 2023 b . Mobilebrick: Building lego for 3d reconstruction on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4892--4901

    2023

  17. [26]

    Li, K.; Pham, T.; Zhan, H.; and Reid, I. 2018. Efficient dense point cloud object reconstruction using deformation vector fields. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 497--513

    2018

  18. [27]

    H.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Li, C.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, L.; Yuan, L.; Zhang, L.; Hwang, J.-N.; et al

    Li, L. H.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Li, C.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, L.; Yuan, L.; Zhang, L.; Hwang, J.-N.; et al. 2022 b . Grounded language-image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10965--10975

    2022

  19. [28]

    Lin, C.-H.; Kong, C.; and Lucey, S. 2018. Learning efficient point cloud generation for dense 3d object reconstruction. In proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32

    2018

  20. [29]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Wu, Q.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023 a . Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 34892--34916

    2023

  21. [30]

    Liu, X.; Li, Y.; Teng, Y.; Bao, H.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y.; and Cui, Z. 2023 b . Multi-modal neural radiance field for monocular dense slam with a light-weight tof sensor. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 1--11

    2023

  22. [31]

    Liu, Y.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.; and Sun, J. 2022. PETR : Position embedding transformation for multi-view 3d object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 531--548. Springer

    2022

  23. [32]

    Martin-Brualla, R.; Radwan, N.; Sajjadi, M. S. M.; Barron, J. T.; Dosovitskiy, A.; and Duckworth, D. 2021. NeRF in the Wild: Neural Radiance Fields for Unconstrained Photo Collections . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2021

  24. [33]

    Mihajlovic, M.; Prokudin, S.; Tang, S.; Maier, R.; Bogo, F.; Tung, T.; and Boyer, E. 2024. Splatfields: Neural gaussian splats for sparse 3d and 4d reconstruction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 313--332. Springer

    2024

  25. [34]

    Nguyen, A.-D.; Choi, S.; Kim, W.; and Lee, S. 2019. GraphX-convolution for point cloud deformation in 2D-to-3D conversion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International conference on computer vision, 8628--8637

    2019

  26. [35]

    Oh, G.; Jeong, J.; Kim, S.; Byeon, W.; Kim, J.; Kim, S.; and Kim, S. 2024. Mevg: Multi-event video generation with text-to-video models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 401--418. Springer

    2024

  27. [36]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

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

    2021

  28. [37]

    W.; Lee, S.; Yoo, I.; Lugmayr, A.; Chi, S.; Ramani, K.; and Kim, S

    Roh, W.; Jung, H.; Kim, J. W.; Lee, S.; Yoo, I.; Lugmayr, A.; Chi, S.; Ramani, K.; and Kim, S. 2024. CATSplat: Context-Aware Transformer with Spatial Guidance for Generalizable 3D Gaussian Splatting from A Single-View Image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12906

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    L.; and Frahm, J.-M

    Sch\" o nberger, J. L.; and Frahm, J.-M. 2016. Structure-from-Motion Revisited . In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  30. [39]

    Shu, C.; Deng, J.; Yu, F.; and Liu, Y. 2023. 3DPPE : 3D Point Positional Encoding for Transformer-based Multi-Camera 3D Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3580--3589

    2023

  31. [40]

    Sinha, A.; Unmesh, A.; Huang, Q.; and Ramani, K. 2017. Surfnet: Generating 3d shape surfaces using deep residual networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6040--6049

    2017

  32. [41]

    Stotko, P.; Weinmann, M.; and Klein, R. 2019. Albedo estimation for real-time 3D reconstruction using RGB-D and IR data. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, 150: 213--225

    2019

  33. [42]

    C.; Bhatt, N

    Sun, L. C.; Bhatt, N. P.; Liu, J. C.; Fan, Z.; Wang, Z.; Humphreys, T. E.; and Topcu, U. 2024. Mm3dgs slam: Multi-modal 3d gaussian splatting for slam using vision, depth, and inertial measurements. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (I...

    2024

  34. [43]

    Toschi, M.; De Matteo, R.; Spezialetti, R.; De Gregorio, D.; Di Stefano, L.; and Salti, S. 2023. Relight my nerf: A dataset for novel view synthesis and relighting of real world objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR...

    2023

  35. [44]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

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

    2017

  36. [45]

    Voynov, O.; Bobrovskikh, G.; Karpyshev, P.; Galochkin, S.; Ardelean, A.-T.; Bozhenko, A.; Karmanova, E.; Kopanev, P.; Labutin-Rymsho, Y.; Rakhimov, R.; et al. 2023. Multi-sensor large-scale dataset for multi-view 3D reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on ...

    2023

  37. [46]

    Wang, F.; Rakotosaona, M.-J.; Niemeyer, M.; Szeliski, R.; Pollefeys, M.; and Tombari, F. 2024 a . UniSDF: Unifying Neural Representations for High-Fidelity 3D Reconstruction of Complex Scenes with Reflections. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 31...

    2024

  38. [47]

    Wang, S.; Leroy, V.; Cabon, Y.; Chidlovskii, B.; and Revaud, J. 2024 b . DUSt3R: Geometric 3D Vision Made Easy. In CVPR

    2024

  39. [48]

    Wang, Z.; Bovik, A.; Sheikh, H.; and Simoncelli, E. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4): 600--612

    2004

  40. [49]

    Wu, T.; Zhang, J.; Fu, X.; Wang, Y.; Ren, J.; Pan, L.; Wu, W.; Yang, L.; Wang, J.; Qian, C.; Lin, D.; and Liu, Z. 2023. OmniObject3D: Large-Vocabulary 3D Object Dataset for Realistic Perception, Reconstruction and Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Comput...

    2023

  41. [50]

    Xiong, B.; Li, Z.; and Li, Z. 2024. GauU-Scene: A Scene Reconstruction Benchmark on Large Scale 3D Reconstruction Dataset Using Gaussian Splatting. arXiv:2401.14032

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    M.; Trybala, P.; Remondino, F.; et al

    Yan, Z.; Mazzacca, G.; Rigon, S.; Farella, E. M.; Trybala, P.; Remondino, F.; et al. 2023. NeRFBK: a holistic dataset for benchmarking NeRF-based 3D reconstruction. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 48(1): 219--226

    2023

  43. [52]

    Yang, L.; Kang, B.; Huang, Z.; Xu, X.; Feng, J.; and Zhao, H. 2024. Depth Anything: Unleashing the Power of Large-Scale Unlabeled Data. In CVPR

    2024

  44. [53]

    Yu, X.; Xu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Ye, C.; Wu, Y.; Yan, Z.; Zhu, C.; Xiong, Z.; Liang, T.; et al. 2023. Mvimgnet: A large-scale dataset of multi-view images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 9150--9161

    2023

  45. [54]

    Yu, Z.; Chen, A.; Huang, B.; Sattler, T.; and Geiger, A. 2024. Mip-Splatting: Alias-free 3D Gaussian Splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 19447--19456

    2024

  46. [55]

    Zhang, H.; Li, X.; and Bing, L. 2023. Video-llama: An instruction-tuned audio-visual language model for video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02858

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Yu, X.; Huang, L.; Gu, L.; Zheng, J.; and Bai, X. 2024. CoR-GS: sparse-view 3D Gaussian splatting via co-regularization. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 335--352. Springer

    2024

  48. [57]

    A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O

    Zhang, R.; Isola, P.; Efros, A. A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 586--595

    2018

  49. [58]

    Zhu, X.; Su, W.; Lu, L.; Li, B.; Wang, X.; and Dai, J. 2020. Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159

    2020 arXiv

  50. [59]

    o fer, M.; Stotko, P.; G \

    Zollh \"o fer, M.; Stotko, P.; G \"o rlitz, A.; Theobalt, C.; Nie ner, M.; Klein, R.; and Kolb, A. 2018. State of the art on 3D reconstruction with RGB-D cameras. In Computer graphics forum, volume 37, 625--652. Wiley Online Library

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.