Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

MarkSplatter: Generalizable Watermarking for 3D Gaussian Splatting Model via Splatter Image Structure

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 MarkSplatter embeds arbitrary copyright messages into 3D Gaussian Splatting models in a single forward pass.

desk verdict A genuinely new single-forward-pass 3DGS watermarking framework with solid held-out results, but the point-cloud extension via GaussianBridge is untested and the 'reliable extraction' claim needs message-level evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00757 v1 pith:GUMKUNMM submitted 2025-08-31 cs.CV

Xiufeng Huang , Ziyuan Luo , Qi Song , Ruofei Wang , Renjie Wan This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingdigitalwatermarkingSplatterImagegeneralizablesingle-forward-passembeddingsegmentation-basedextractionuncertainty-awarecopyrightprotection
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

MarkSplatter aims to make 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) watermarking as flexible as image watermarking: instead of fine-tuning each 3D model for each fixed message, a trained embedder-extractor pair processes the model once and embeds any binary message on demand. The key move is to represent 3DGS models as Splatter Images—a grid where each pixel encodes one 3D Gaussian—so standard neural networks can operate directly on the 3D representation. For existing point-cloud-based 3DGS models, a GaussianBridge module converts them into Splatter Images, extending protection beyond models natively generated in that format. The paper reports about 94% bit accuracy with minimal visual distortion, in roughly 2.5 seconds per model, compared with over 100 seconds for fine-tuning baselines, and robustness across common image and 3D attacks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Splatter Image, a grid-based 3DGS format in which each pixel encodes one 3D Gaussian's 14 attributes (position, color, opacity, rotation, scaling). It carries the argument by turning an unstructured, permutation-invariant point cloud into an image-like tensor that standard neural networks can process. On top of it, GaussianBridge converts point-cloud 3DGS into Splatter Images through multi-view orbital rendering and a feed-forward Gaussian reconstruction model. The embedder uses an encoder-decoder with AdaIN and multi-view attention to add message-dependent perturbations to color attributes, modulated by a Gaussian-Uncertainty-Perceptual (GUP) heatmap that suppresse

What would settle it

Render the original point-cloud 3DGS model and its GaussianBridge-reconstructed Splatter Image from identical camera paths and measure perceptual distance between the renderings; if the reconstruction is clearly distinguishable from the original beyond the reported ~35 dB PSNR level, then a watermark embedded in the reconstructed Splatter Image does not protect the original model, because an attacker can redistribute the untouched original. A complementary test: extract the message from renderings of the original, unwatermarked model after the watermarked Splatter Image is deleted; if the mess

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to be the first generalizable 3DGS watermarking framework, and its central claim is that 3DGS watermarking can be made generalizable by operating on the Splatter Image structure rather than on model parameters. The paper constructs an embedder that adds a message-dependent perturbation to the color attributes of the Splatter Image, modulated by a Gaussian-Uncertainty-Perceptual (GUP) heatmap that reduces changes in perceptually important regions, and an extractor reframed as a dense segmentation task that locates watermarked pixels and reads their bits from rendered views even when the object occupies a small image region. To cover existing point-cloud 3DGS models, GaussianB

Load-bearing premise

The claim that pre-existing point-cloud 3DGS models are protected rests on the assumption that converting them to Splatter Images via orbital rendering and feed-forward reconstruction loses no perception-critical content, so watermarking the reconstruction is equivalent to watermarking the original.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any Splatter Image-based 3DGS model can be watermarked with a new message on demand in a single forward pass, removing the need to re-run per-scene optimization when the copyright message changes.
  • GaussianBridge extends the same protection to existing point-cloud-based 3DGS models, so legacy assets can be protected without retraining the watermarking network.
  • The segmentation-based extractor keeps message recovery reliable when watermarked objects appear small in the frame, a standard failure mode for global image watermark extractors.
  • Reported robustness under render-space and 3D-space attacks implies the watermark can survive common redistributions, including cropping, scaling, and geometric edits to the Gaussian representation itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If single-pass embedding holds, watermarking could move to distribution time rather than creation time, letting different customers or licenses receive the same model with distinct embedded messages at negligible cost.
  • The Splatter Image bridge is representation-level: the same conversion could make other neural image operations—denoising, compression, style transfer—applicable to 3DGS models, since the 3D asset is temporarily rendered into an image-like tensor.
  • The current evaluation renders mostly from equatorial orbit elevations; a natural extension is to test steep top-down or bottom-up viewpoints, where occlusion and scale vary, to see whether the dense segmentation extractor remains accurate.
  • A stricter ownership proof would require the watermark to survive a GaussianBridge round trip in both directions; as presented, the watermark lives in the reconstructed Splatter Image, so an attacker who keeps the original point-cloud model may be able to redistribute it unmarked.
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. The paper proposes MarkSplatter, a generalizable watermarking framework for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) models. It introduces GaussianBridge, which converts unstructured point-cloud 3DGS into structured Splatter Images via multi-view rendering and an LGM-based reconstruction model. A multi-view embedder perturbs the Splatter Image color attributes conditioned on geometry, modulated by a Gaussian-Uncertainty-Perceptual (GUP) heatmap; a segmentation-based extractor localizes watermarked regions and recovers bit messages from rendered views or from Splatter Image parameters. Experiments on held-out Objaverse and GSO objects report roughly 94% bit accuracy, PSNR 35.12 dB, and a runtime of about 2.5 s, against fine-tuning baselines that require 100+ s. The paper claims this is the first generalizable 3DGS watermarking framework and that it can protect both Splatter-Image-native and existing point-cloud-based 3DGS models.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a meaningful step toward practical 3DGS watermarking: it replaces per-scene fine-tuning with a single forward pass, is evaluated on held-out objects and generative model families, and includes reasonable ablations of its components. The generalization protocol is a genuine strength, and the runtime advantage over fine-tuning baselines is substantial. However, the current evidence supports bit-level accuracy, not message-level reliability, and the point-cloud protection claim relies on an untested lossy round trip. Both issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims and need to be addressed before the contribution is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Tables 1–2] The paper reports per-bit accuracy, but the claimed 'reliable extraction' (Abstract; §4.2.2) is a message-level property. At the reported 94.41% bit accuracy for 32-bit messages, exact message recovery has probability 0.9441^32 ≈ 0.16 under independent bit errors; for 48-bit messages the figure is 0.9336^48 ≈ 0.04. Under the distortions in Table 2 (bit accuracies of 87–93%), exact recovery is essentially negligible. No error-correcting code is described in §4.2 or §5.2. Please report full-message accuracy and false-positive rates, or add and evaluate an explicit ECC scheme.
  2. [§4.1, §5.1, Table 3] The protection claim for existing point-cloud-based 3DGS architectures is not validated end-to-end. GaussianBridge converts a point-cloud 3DGS to a Splatter Image through rendering and LGM reconstruction, which is lossy (PSNR ≈ 35 dB, Table 1; improved with 6 views in Table 5). The experiments extract from watermarked Splatter Images directly (§5.1: 'We also extract messages from the watermarked Splatter Images') or after one flattening (Table 3). They never test the full cycle: original point-cloud 3DGS → GaussianBridge → embed → flatten → distribute → GaussianBridge again → extract. Without this test, survival of the watermark through the two lossy conversions is unverified. Add this experiment or restrict the claim to Splatter-Image-native models.
  3. [§4.2.1] The message embedder uses 'a learnable binary lookup table' to map binary messages into latent perturbations. If this is a literal lookup table indexed by the complete message, it cannot scale to 32-bit or 48-bit messages; if it is a learned linear projection or per-bit embedding, the description is misleading. Please specify the mechanism precisely and verify generalization to messages not seen during training, since 'arbitrary message embedding' is a core contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] In the baseline list, 'Fine-tuning 3DGS+WAM[64]' and the bullet 'WAM[64]' should cite WAM [32], not HiDDeN [64]; the bullet also says 'HiDDeN [32]' where WAM is meant.
  2. [§5.1] The dataset description states '45K objects and 144k rendering views,' but 45,000 objects × 32 views ≈ 1.44M views. Please correct this inconsistency.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption describes GaussianBridge as enabling 'bi-directional transformation.' The reverse direction is only a flattening operation, not a learned reconstruction; this should be stated in the caption or text to avoid overstating the symmetry of the module.
  4. [Tables 1–2] The 'None' row for Ours reports 94.41% in Table 1 and 94.35% in Table 2 for the same setting. Please clarify whether this is due to different test subsets or randomization, or unify the numbers.
  5. [§4.2.1, Eq. (3)] The uncertainty estimate H = ∇G I G ∇G I^T_G is described as a simplification of the Hessian; please state the exact dimensions per Gaussian and cite the specific approximation from FisherRF [16] so the implementation is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central generalization claim is empirically self-contained. The point-cloud round-trip protection claim lacks a full-cycle experiment, but that is a support gap, not circularity.

full rationale

MarkSplatter's central claim — a single-forward-pass generalizable watermark for Splatter Image-based 3DGS — does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The embedder/extractor is trained on Objaverse and evaluated on held-out Objaverse and GSO objects plus three generative-model families, so the reported bit accuracies and PSNR values are genuine generalization measurements rather than refits of the test set. Self-citations to GaussianMarker [51] and CopyRNeRF [23] are component-level borrowings (uncertainty-based perturbation, color-only embedding), not proofs of the new generalizable-watermarking claim, and the uncertainty component is also grounded in external FisherRF [16]. GaussianBridge is an adaptation of the external LGM reconstruction model, not a repackaged result of the present paper. The one notable weakness is that Table 3's extraction 'from 3DGS model parameters' is performed on the watermarked Splatter Image itself (Sec. 5.1), not after the full point-cloud flattening and re-bridging cycle described in Sec. 4.1, so the protection claim for existing point-cloud 3DGS depends on an untested lossy round trip (reconstruction PSNR ~35 dB). That is a missing-support/correctness-risk issue, not a circular reduction, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The free parameters are hyperparameters (alpha, lambda1, lambda2) whose values are not reported and which directly control the imperceptibility/robustness tradeoff of the whole pipeline. The axioms are domain assumptions about conversion fidelity, transfer of the uncertainty heatmap from 3DGS parameter space to Splatter grid space, and the generalization of the LGM reconstruction backbone. The invented entities are software modules with internal validation only, not physical entities with independently testable predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (perturbation scaling factor) = not reported
    Eq. 4: x_w = x + alpha * gamma * delta. Alpha scales the GUP-modulated watermark perturbation; its value or how it is set is not given, and it directly controls the imperceptibility/robustness tradeoff.
  • lambda1, lambda2 (loss weights) = not reported
    Section 4.3: L_total = lambda1 * L_mask + lambda2 * L_msg. The weights are not specified, and the results depend on their balance.
  • learnable message lookup table = learned
    Section 4.2.1: a learnable binary lookup table maps binary messages into latent perturbations at the bottleneck; its construction, size, and capacity are not described.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Splatter Image representation faithfully preserves the information content of the point-cloud 3DGS model, so watermarks embedded in the Splatter Image remain valid for the original model.
    Section 4.1: GaussianBridge converts via orbital rendering plus LGM reconstruction; the conversion is lossy (PSNR around 35 dB per Section 5.3), so the assumption that watermarking the reconstructed Splatter Image protects the original model is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The Fisher-information (Hessian) proxy over rendered images yields an uncertainty map that, when splatted to a heatmap, correctly identifies perceptually sensitive Gaussian attributes, and this heatmap transfers from 3DGS parameter space to the 128x128 Splatter Image grid.
    Section 4.2.1, Eqs. 3-4: U = log(gradient_G I * gradient_G I^T), gamma = R(U, v) applied to Splatter Image color perturbations. The spatial alignment between the 512x512 rendered heatmap and the 128x128 Splatter grid is unspecified.
  • domain assumption LGM's Gaussian reconstruction model, trained on Objaverse, generalizes to arbitrary 3DGS point-cloud models including out-of-distribution GSO objects.
    Section 4.1 and 5.1: GaussianBridge uses LGM with 4-8 input views; its generalization is tested only on held-out Objaverse and GSO samples, and the conversion quality directly bounds watermark fidelity for point-cloud models.
invented entities (2)
  • GaussianBridge
    purpose: Converts unstructured point-cloud 3DGS into grid-based Splatter Image format so existing neural watermarking networks can process 3D Gaussians.
    Software module built on LGM; validated only by the paper's internal reconstruction-quality metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS). No external benchmark or separate falsifiable prediction is provided.
  • GUP heatmap (Gaussian-Uncertainty-Perceptual)
    purpose: Modulates watermark perturbation magnitude per attribute to keep embedded watermarks imperceptible.
    A mechanism derived from prior uncertainty estimation (FisherRF [16], GaussianMarker [51]); no independent handle outside the paper's own PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS evaluations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MarkSplatter: Generalizable Watermarking for 3D Gaussian Splatting Model via Splatter Image Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GUMKUNMM

@misc{pith2026250900757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MarkSplatter: Generalizable Watermarking for 3D Gaussian Splatting Model via Splatter Image Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GUMKUNMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00757}
}
read the original abstract

The growing popularity of 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has intensified the need for effective copyright protection. Current 3DGS watermarking methods rely on computationally expensive fine-tuning procedures for each predefined message. We propose the first generalizable watermarking framework that enables efficient protection of Splatter Image-based 3DGS models through a single forward pass. We introduce GaussianBridge that transforms unstructured 3D Gaussians into Splatter Image format, enabling direct neural processing for arbitrary message embedding. To ensure imperceptibility, we design a Gaussian-Uncertainty-Perceptual heatmap prediction strategy for preserving visual quality. For robust message recovery, we develop a dense segmentation-based extraction mechanism that maintains reliable extraction even when watermarked objects occupy minimal regions in rendered views. Project page: https://kevinhuangxf.github.io/marksplatter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of different watermarking approaches. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed method. The GaussianBridge module enables bi-directional transformation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results of comparing our method with the baselines on the evaluation dataset. The extraction accuracies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Watermarking performance on generative models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GaussianBridge reconstruction with 4 input views [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mahdi Ahmadi, Alireza Norouzi, Nader Karimi, Shadrokh Samavi, and Ali Emami

    work page

  2. [2]

    Xingyu Chen, Yu Deng, and Baoyuan Wang. 2023. Mimic3D: Thriving 3D- Aware GANs via 3D-to-2D Imitation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Yuedong Chen, Haofei Xu, Chuanxia Zheng, Bohan Zhuang, Marc Pollefeys, Andreas Geiger, Tat-Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. 2024. Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14627 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi

  5. [5]

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ramanan. 2022. Depth- supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster training for free. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Laura Downs, Anthony Francis, Nate Koenig, Brandon Kinman, Ryan Hickman, Krista Reymann, Thomas B McHugh, and Vincent Vanhoucke. 2022. Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Han Fang, Yupeng Qiu, Kejiang Chen, Jiyi Zhang, Weiming Zhang, and Ee- Chien Chang. 2023. Flow-based robust watermarking with invertible noise layer for black-box distortions. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 37. 5054–5061

    work page 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Shuai Guo, Qiuwen Wang, Yijie Gao, Rong Xie, and Li Song. 2024. Depth- Guided Robust and Fast Point Cloud Fusion NeRF for Sparse Input Views. In The Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems NeurIPS (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. 2023. LRM: Large Reconstruction Model for Single Image to 3D. In International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (ICLR)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Xiufeng Huang, Ka Chun Cheung, Runmin Cong, Simon See, and Renjie Wan

  6. [14]

    Youngdong Jang, Dong In Lee, MinHyuk Jang, Jong Wook Kim, Feng Yang, and Sangpil Kim. 2024. WateRF: Robust Watermarks in Radiance Fields for Protection of Copyrights. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 12087–12097

    2024

  7. [15]

    Youngdong Jang, Hyunje Park, Feng Yang, Heeju Ko, Euijin Choo, and Sangpil Kim. 2024. 3d-gsw: 3d gaussian splatting watermark for protecting copyrights in radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13222 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Wen Jiang, Boshu Lei, and Kostas Daniilidis. 2024. FisherRF: Active View Selection and Uncertainty Quantification for Radiance Fields using Fisher Information. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis

  10. [18]

    Andreas Kirsch and Yarin Gal. 2022. Unifying approaches in active learning and active sampling via fisher information and information-theoretic quantities. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR) (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, Gilles Rainer, Clément Jambon, and George Drettakis. 2022. Neural point catacaustics for novel-view synthesis of reflections. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Chih-Chin Lai and Cheng-Chih Tsai. 2010. Digital Image Watermarking Using Discrete Wavelet Transform and Singular Value Decomposition. IEEE Transac- tions on Instrumentation and Measurement (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) (2023)

    3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ruiqi Li and Yiu-ming Cheung. 2024. Variational multi-scale representation for estimating uncertainty in 3d gaussian splatting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 87934–87958

    2024

  15. [23]

    Ziyuan Luo, Qing Guo, Ka Chun Cheung, Simon See, and Renjie Wan. 2023. CopyRNeRF: Protecting the CopyRight of Neural Radiance Fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ziyuan Luo, Jun Liu, Haoliang Li, Anderson Rocha, and Renjie Wan. 2025. Mantle- Mark: Migrating Watermarks from Multi-View Images to Radiance Fields via Frequency Modulation. Authorea Preprints (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Chenxin Li, Brandon Y Feng, Zhiwen Fan, Panwang Pan, and Zhangyang Wang

  18. [26]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    StegaNeRF: Embedding Invisible Information within Neural Radiance Fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

  19. [27]

    Gal Metzer, Elad Richardson, Or Patashnik, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen- Or. 2023. Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhangkai Ni, Peiqi Yang, Wenhan Yang, Hanli Wang, Lin Ma, and Sam Kwong

  21. [29]

    Michael Niemeyer, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Andreas Geiger, and Noha Radwan. 2022. Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ziyuan Luo, Anderson Rocha, Boxin Shi, Qing Guo, Haoliang Li, and Renjie Wan

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2025)

    The nerf signature: Codebook-aided watermarking for neural radiance fields. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Rui Ma, Mengxi Guo, Yi Hou, Fan Yang, Yuan Li, Huizhu Jia, and Xiaodong Xie

  25. [33]

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. 2023. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16512 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jeongho Son, Dongkyu Kim, Hak-Yeol Choi, Han-Ul Jang, and Sunghee Choi. 2017. Perceptual 3D Watermarking Using Mesh Saliency. InProceedings of International Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Qi Song, Ziyuan Luo, Ka Chun Cheung, Simon See, and Renjie Wan. 2024. Ge- ometry cloak: Preventing tgs-based 3d reconstruction from copyrighted images. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 119361–119385

    2024

  28. [36]

    Qi Song, Ziyuan Luo, Ka Chun Cheung, Simon See, and Renjie Wan. 2024. Pro- tecting NeRFs’ Copyright via Plug-And-Play Watermarking Base Model. In Pro- ceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Chrisitian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2024. Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3d reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Thottempudi Pardhu and Bhaskara Rao Perli. 2016. Digital image watermarking in frequency domain. InProceedings of International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Emil Praun, Hugues Hoppe, and Adam Finkelstein. 1999. Robust mesh water- marking. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (PACMCGIT)

    1999

  32. [40]

    Tom Sander, Pierre Fernandez, Alain Durmus, Teddy Furon, and Matthijs Douze

  33. [41]

    In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    Watermark Anything with Localized Messages. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

  34. [42]

    Ron G Van Schyndel, Andrew Z Tirkel, and Charles F Osborne. 1994. A digital watermark. In Proceedings of International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)

    1994

  35. [43]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems NeurIPS (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Peng Wang and Yichun Shi. 2023. Imagedream: Image-prompt multi-view diffu- sion for 3d generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02201 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Barron, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noah Snavely, and Thomas MM ’25, October 27–31, 2025, Dublin, Ireland Xiufeng Huang, Ziyuan Luo, Qi Song, Ruofei Wang, and Renjie Wan Funkhouser

    Qianqian Wang, Zhicheng Wang, Kyle Genova, Pratul Srinivasan, Howard Zhou, Jonathan T. Barron, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noah Snavely, and Thomas MM ’25, October 27–31, 2025, Dublin, Ireland Xiufeng Huang, Ziyuan Luo, Qi Song, Ruofei Wang, and Renjie Wan Funkhouser. 2021. IBRNet...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Ruofei Wang, Renjie Wan, Zongyu Guo, Qing Guo, and Rui Huang. 2024. Spy- Watermark: Robust Invisible Watermarking for Backdoor Attack. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Matthew Tancik, Ben Mildenhall, and Ren Ng. 2020. StegaStamp: Invisible Hyperlinks in Physical Photographs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. 2024. LGM: Large Multi-View Gaussian Model for High-Resolution 3D Content Creation. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Jiaxiang Tang, Jiawei Ren, Hang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Gang Zeng. 2024. Dream- gaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Prune Truong, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Fabian Manhardt, and Federico Tombari

  43. [51]

    In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Sparf: Neural radiance fields from sparse and noisy poses. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

  44. [52]

    Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Wang Yifan, Sida Peng, Ceyuan Yang, Yujun Shen, and Wetzstein Gordon. 2024. GRM: Large Gaussian Reconstruction Model for Efficient 3D Reconstruction and Generation. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Yinghao Xu, Hao Tan, Fujun Luan, Sai Bi, Peng Wang, Jiahao Li, Zifan Shi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Gordon Wetzstein, Zexiang Xu, et al. 2024. Dmv3d: Denoising multi- view diffusion using 3d large reconstruction model. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Peng Yang, Yingjie Lao, and Ping Li. 2021. Robust watermarking for deep neural networks via bi-level optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Innfarn Yoo, Huiwen Chang, Xiyang Luo, Ondrej Stava, Ce Liu, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. 2022. Deep 3D-to-2D Watermarking: Embedding Messages in 3D Meshes and Extracting Them from 2D Renderings. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2022

  48. [56]

    Alex Yu, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. 2021. pixelnerf: Neu- ral radiance fields from one or few images. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Xinyu Weng, Yongzhi Li, Lu Chi, and Yadong Mu. 2019. High-Capacity Convolu- tional Video Steganography with Temporal Residual Modeling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Eric Wengrowski and Kristin Dana. 2019. Light Field Messaging with Deep Pho- tographic Steganography. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 2015. 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumet- ric shapes. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Simon See Renjie Wan Xiufeng Huang, Ka Chun Cheung. 2024. GeometrySticker: Enabling Ownership Claim of Recolorized Neural Radiance Fields. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Yiu-ming Cheung Ka Chun Cheung Simon See Renjie Wan Xiufeng Huang, Ruiqi Li. 2024. GaussianMarker: Uncertainty-Aware Copyright Protection of 3D Gaussian Splatting. Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

  55. [63]

    Han Fang Zhaoyang Jia and Weiming Zhang. 2021. MBRS: Enhancing Robust- ness of DNN-based Watermarking by Mini-Batch of Real and Simulated JPEG Compression. In ACM MULTIMEDIA (MM)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Jiren Zhu, Russell Kaplan, Justin Johnson, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. HiDDeN: Hiding data with deep networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Zi-Xin Zou, Zhipeng Yu, Yuan-Chen Guo, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang, Yan-Pei Cao, and Song-Hai Zhang. 2024. Triplane meets gaussian splatting: Fast and generalizable single-view 3d reconstruction with transformers. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2024

  58. [67]

    Chong Yu. 2020. Attention based data hiding with generative adversarial net- works. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 34. 1120–1128

    2020

  59. [68]

    Chaoning Zhang, Philipp Benz, Adil Karjauv, Geng Sun, and In So Kweon. 2020. UDH: Universal deep hiding for steganography, watermarking, and light field messaging. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2020

  60. [69]

    Honglei Zhang, Hu Wang, Yuanzhouhan Cao, Chunhua Shen, and Yidong Li

  61. [70]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10850 (2020)

    Robust data hiding using inverse gradient attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10850 (2020)

    2011 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. 2024. GS-LRM: Large Reconstruction Model for 3D Gaussian Splatting. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    2024

  63. [72]

    Kevin Alex Zhang, Lei Xu, Alfredo Cuesta-Infante, and Kalyan Veeramacha- neni. 2019. Robust invisible video watermarking with attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01285 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  64. [2018]

    In Proceeding of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metric. In Proceeding of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

  65. [2020]

    Expert Systems with Applications (2020)

    ReDMark: Framework for Residual Diffusion Watermarking based on Deep Networks. Expert Systems with Applications (2020)

    2020

  66. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multi- media

    Towards blind watermarking: Combining invertible and non-invertible mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multi- media. 1532–1542

  67. [2023]

    In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

  68. [2024]

    In The Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    ColNeRF: Collaboration for Generalizable Sparse Input Neural Radiance Field. In The Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

  69. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14921 (2025)

    Stereo-GS: Multi-View Stereo Vision Model for Generalizable 3D Gaussian Splatting Reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14921 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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