Look Before You Edit: Attention-Guided Camera Placement and Multi-View Alignment for 3D Gaussian Splatting Editing

JaeYeon Park; Taeho Kang; Youngki Lee

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 27 references

Look Before You Edit: Attention-Guided Camera Placement and Multi-View Alignment for 3D Gaussian Splatting Editing

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Probing diffusion attention finds the camera distance that makes 3D edits local and consistent.

desk verdict Genuinely new attention-guided camera placement, but the 5-step attention proxy is unvalidated and the evidence is too thin to back the claims; worth a major-revision review, not unconditional acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19777 v1 pith:NIDL6JO5 submitted 2026-07-22 cs.CV

Jaeyeon Park , Taeho Kang , Youngki Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords 3DGaussianSplattingtext-driveneditingattention-guidedcameraplacementmulti-viewconsistencyself-attentionalignmentcross-attentiondiffusionviewselection

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

LB-Edit argues that the two classic failures of text-driven 3D scene editing—edits that miss or bleed outside the target object, and per-view edits that disagree after fusion—share a root cause: the editing views come from reconstruction cameras that were never chosen with the edit in mind. The paper proposes to ask the diffusion editor itself, via its self- and cross-attention maps, at which camera distance the edit would stay contained in the region of interest (ROI). Attention-Guided Editing Camera Placement (ACP) probes a few candidate distances, scores them by cross-attention concentration (F1 against the projected ROI mask minus background activation) plus self-attention containment (one minus background-to-ROI leakage), and places a diverse, compact camera set at the optimal distance. Then Multi-View Attention Alignment (MAA) shares self-attention features across views through token-level correspondence and re-renders a shared 3D cross-attention field into each view, so appearance and spatial location agree in a single editing pass. The result is that the same scene can be edited with as few as 5 views and up to 7× less latency than methods using 20–60 fixed views, while improving user-rated instruction fidelity, consistency, and locality.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the attention-concentration score that ACP maximizes: S_ca = F1(thresholded cross-attention, projected ROI mask) − (1 − 90th-percentile background cross-attention) and S_sa = 1 − (occupancy-normalized background-to-ROI self-attention leakage). Together they select the editing distance d*. Camera placement then scores candidate directions on a Fibonacci lattice by visibility and canonical alignment, and picks K cameras by farthest-point sampling. For consistency, MAA computes a reference pass that caches extended cross-view self-attention and builds a per-Gaussian 3D attention field via inverse splatting; target views replace their self-attention output with the matched

What would settle it

Render two camera sets at the same scene: one at the distance d* selected by the 5-step attention proxy and one at a distance with a clearly lower S_ca+S_sa. Run the full editing pipeline (including MAA and fine-tuning) on each. If the low-score set matches or beats the high-score set in user-rated instruction fidelity and locality, the attention oracle isn't determining the outcome. A more direct check: compute the rank correlation between 5-step and full-schedule attention maps for a set of scenes, prompts, and distances; a weak correlation would invalidate the proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the diffusion editor's attention maps are a reliable oracle for camera placement: the distance that maximizes cross-attention ROI alignment and self-attention containment yields edits that stay confined to the target object, and the same attention maps, lifted into 3D, can synchronize edits across views. This turns camera placement from a hand-crafted geometric problem into an attention-driven decision, and turns multi-view consistency into a joint self- and cross-attention alignment problem solved within one U-Net pass. If right, it removes the dependence on many fixed views, making localized 3D editing practical for interactive use.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that attention maps from a single frontal probe camera and only five denoising steps reliably predict the editor's behavior across all viewpoints and the full denoising schedule; if that proxy misranks distances, the chosen camera set would no longer be optimal and the reported localization and consistency gains would degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Editing a 3D scene becomes nearly as fast as editing a handful of 2D views: 5 ACP-chosen cameras can replace 20–60 fixed views with equal or better text-image alignment and user preference.
Users gain the freedom to target a specific object in a cluttered scene by natural language, without manually selecting key views or worrying that the object is cropped or too small in training views.
Because self- and cross-attention are aligned in one pass, appearance and spatial drift are suppressed jointly, which should resolve the duplicated- or missing-geometry artifacts that plague instance-level edits like adding glasses or changing a nose.
The same attention-probing principle could be reused for other per-object 3D operations—deletion, recoloring, material changes—wherever the 2D editor's attention can be probed cheaply.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's speed gain is partly an artifact of the proxy (5-step attention as an oracle); a stronger test would compare the selected d* against an exhaustive sweep of distances using full-schedule edits, to establish that the proxy isn't cherry-picking.
The count-averaged inverse-splatting aggregation (rather than transmittance-weighted) may be suboptimal when the ROI is severely occluded from the reference views; an occlusion-aware weighting is an obvious extension.
Treating camera placement as an attention-driven decision could transfer to video editing, where per-frame attention maps could place a temporally consistent camera path.
The single-dominant-ROI assumption suggests the framework would need extension for instructions like 'change both the bear and the vase'; per-object distance probing might be the natural next step.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper has a genuinely new idea: instead of taking the fixed COLMAP cameras as given, it probes the diffusion editor's self- and cross-attention at a few candidate distances and places a compact set of editing cameras where attention is well-contained in the target ROI. The method section is detailed and the design choices are explained with actual numbers (e.g., the occupancy normalization for self-attention leakage). The Table 1 mapping of prior work is useful. MAA's joint alignment of self- and cross-attention in a single forward pass is also new as a combination, and the reference-target partitioning is a pragmatic way to keep it tractable.

But the empirical support is thinner than the claims. The load-bearing assumption is that 5 denoising steps are enough to estimate attention layout; Appendix A.1 asserts this with no quantitative comparison to the full schedule. If attention at step 5 doesn't predict the layout at the steps that actually form the edit, the selected distance d* can be wrong, and with it the localization and consistency advantages. This needs a direct validation: correlate 5-step scores with full-schedule scores, or show that the selected d* yields better edits than nearby distances in a quantitative way.

The other gaps are more standard: CLIPsim in Table 2 has no error bars or significance tests (some margins are small: 19.78 vs 19.46 on room); the user study is 21 participants over 14 tasks with no significance test; and both ablations—ACP and MAA—are qualitative images only. For a paper whose two contributions are ACP and MAA, you need quantitative ablations of each. Code and data release would also be expected for a systems paper like this; without it, reproducibility is limited. The limitations section acknowledges the single-ROI assumption, which is honest but doesn't affect the main claims.

None of this is fatal: the idea is sound and the method description is clear. But as it stands, the paper overstates its evidence. I'd send it to reviewers, but the revision expectations would be substantial: validate the 5-step proxy, add error bars or significance testing, quantify the ablations, and release code.

Bottom line: worth engaging with, worth a serious referee, but as-is I'd want major revision before I'd trust the specific numbers.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LB-Edit, a two-stage pipeline for text-driven 3D Gaussian Splatting editing. In the first stage, Attention-Guided Editing Camera Placement (ACP) probes InstructPix2Pix self- and cross-attention at a few candidate camera distances, selecting the distance that maximizes a joint score of cross-attention ROI alignment and self-attention containment (Eqs. 1–4), then places a compact, geometrically diverse set of K editing cameras (Eq. 5, farthest-point sampling). In the second stage, Multi-View Attention Alignment (MAA) synchronizes per-view edits by sharing self-attention features through token correspondence and by replacing cross-attention outputs with a 3D-lifted, re-rendered attention field (Eqs. 6–8). The edited views are used to fine-tune the 3DGS with ROI-masked optimization. The paper reports CLIPsim and a 21-participant user study across five scenes, claiming the highest user preference and up to 7× lower latency than baselines requiring 20–60 editing views.

Significance. If the central claims hold, LB-Edit would be the first diffusion-based 3DGS editor to jointly address editing-aware camera placement, self-attention alignment, and cross-attention alignment, with a substantial efficiency advantage. The method is clearly motivated: fixed COLMAP cameras are indeed optimized for reconstruction rather than for editing a user-selected ROI. The formulation is detailed and the appendices provide concrete implementation choices. However, the empirical support is thin: CLIPsim in Table 2 has no error bars or significance tests, the user study in Table 3 is small (21 participants, 14 tasks) with no inter-rater analysis, and the ablations in Fig. 4 are qualitative. The paper's most load-bearing assumption—that attention maps extracted from only 5 denoising steps and a single frontal probe camera are a reliable oracle for full-schedule behavior—is asserted in Appendix A.1 but not quantitatively validated. The contribution is potentially valuable, but the evidence as presented is insufficient for acceptance.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Appendix A.1] The ACP distance probing runs InstructPix2Pix for only 5 denoising steps, justified by the claim that 'attention spatial structure stabilizes within the first few steps' (Appendix A.1). This is the load-bearing premise of Eq. (4): if 5-step attention does not predict full-schedule editing behavior across viewpoints and distances, the selected d* can be wrong, and both the localization benefit and the MAA consistency gains degrade. The paper provides no quantitative comparison of 5-step versus full-schedule attention maps, nor a check that the frontal probe view is representative of off-front candidate cameras. Please add such a comparison (e.g., correlation of S_ca and S_sa between 5-step and full schedule across multiple scenes and viewpoints) or substantially soften the claim.
[§4.3, Tables 2 and 3] The quantitative evidence for the central 'highest user preference' claim is thin. Table 2 reports single CLIPsim point estimates with no standard deviations, repetitions, or significance tests; the single non-winning scene (bear) is rationalized post hoc as a CLIPsim pathology. Table 3 reports 21 participants over 14 tasks with no inter-rater agreement or confidence intervals; several margins are small (e.g., editing locality 32.9% vs 30.6%). Without error bars or paired significance testing, the headline results are not established. Please report per-task and per-participant distributions, paired tests or confidence intervals, and multi-seed CLIPsim values.
[Eq. (4), Appendix A.5] The attention-optimal distance is selected by maximizing S_ca + S_sa, justified by the claim that both scores have 'comparable empirical ranges.' No empirical ranges are actually reported, and the stability claim is only stated for 5 scenes. If the ranges are not comparable, the unweighted sum is an arbitrary objective, and the whole ACP selection inherits that arbitrariness. Additionally, the candidate multipliers m_i (Appendix A.2) and the energy weights in Eq. (5) are free parameters with no sensitivity analysis. Please report the distributions of S_ca and S_sa across distances and scenes, and a sensitivity study over these weights and multipliers.
[Fig. 4a/4b] The ablations for both ACP and MAA are qualitative, with one example per distance regime and one qualitative panel per alignment component. The textual claims—'Closer-than-Optimal views are filtered out by high SA leakage' and 'Further-than-Optimal rejected due to low CA-to-mask alignment'—should be supported by quantitative metrics (e.g., mean and standard deviation of S_sa, S_ca, and a downstream locality metric such as mask IoU of the edited region) over all scenes and prompts. Similarly, the value of +SA and +CA is shown only as images; provide quantitative consistency and locality numbers. Without this, the central contribution of ACP and MAA is not convincingly validated.

minor comments (7)

[Section 6] In the Limitations paragraph, 'extending AGEVS to handle multiple disjoint regions' should presumably be 'extending ACP' or a similarly named component; as written it appears to be a typo.
[Appendix F] Appendix F repeats the heading 'Evaluation Prompt Details' and the same introductory sentence as Appendix E, and Table 5 appears only once. This looks like a duplication error; remove one appendix.
[Table 4] The caption mentions '†CLIPsim outlier caused by global color bleeding (see text)', but the dagger is not placed on the DGE(5) row in the table body, and the outlier discussion appears in §4.3 without a clear pointer. Please make the marker and the cross-reference explicit.
[§4.3] The phrase 'we analyze this case Ablation' appears to be missing a reference; it is likely intended to point to Sec. D.2 or Fig. 9. Please correct the citation.
[Eq. (8) vs Eq. (18)] Equation (18) duplicates Eq. (8) verbatim in Appendix C; consider referring to the earlier equation to avoid redundancy.
[Appendix A.2] The candidate distance multipliers are said to be 'adjusted per scene' but no adjustment procedure is described. If this is a free parameter that affects results, state how it was set (e.g., by scene size or prior trials) for reproducibility.
[References] There are two GaussianEditor entries in the references (Chen et al. 2024a and Wang et al. 2024a) and the intro cites both as 'GaussianEditor [Chen et al. 2024a; Wang et al. 2024a]'. Please verify that the citations map to the intended papers and avoid citation ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ACP/MAA are evaluated against external benchmarks; the 5-step attention proxy and ROI-masked locality are assumptions/confounds, not circular reductions.

full rationale

LB-Edit is a method paper rather than a derivation chain. ACP selects a camera distance by maximizing an attention-containment score (Eqs. 1-4) computed from a 5-step InstructPix2Pix probe; the final evaluations (user study, CLIPsim, wall-clock latency) are external to those scores. No parameter is fitted to the benchmark and no reported quantity is obtained by inverting the evaluation metric. The conceptual alignment between 'attention well-contained in the ROI' (the ACP objective) and 'editing locality' (a user-study axis) is a design heuristic, not a circular reduction: the probe attention maps are not the final edited images, and the selected distance is fixed before the full-schedule editing begins. MAA's multi-view consistency is enforced by construction (Eqs. 7-8, replacing attention outputs with shared reference features and a shared 3D attention field), but reporting a consistency metric for an explicitly consistency-enforcing method is a sanity check rather than a prediction. There are no self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or renamed empirical laws. The weakest load-bearing assumption is Appendix A.1's assertion that attention spatial structure stabilizes within the first few denoising steps; this is an unvalidated empirical proxy that deserves quantitative support, but an unverified assumption is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity. Similarly, restricting fine-tuning to the ROI-masked Gaussians (Sec. 4, Appendix C.2) makes the final 3D edit localized by construction, so the user-study locality axis largely validates the disclosed masking choice rather than ACP alone; this is a confounding design detail, not a circular derivation. Overall, the central claims are independently testable and were not shown to reduce to their inputs.

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

No new physical entities are postulated; the shared 3D attention field is an aggregation of existing cross-attention maps. The main missing ingredients the reader must grant are the hand-set hyperparameters and the attention-proxy assumptions listed above.

free parameters (4)

Candidate distance multipliers m_i = {5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0}, adjusted per scene
Hand-set grid; d* is selected only within this discrete, scene-adjusted set (Appendix A.2).
Energy and diversity weights = w_vis=1.0, w_can=0.5 (w_can=0 for 360 scenes); w_phi and w_y not specified
Hand-chosen balance between visibility and canonical alignment in Eq. 5 and diversity in Eq. 12; no sensitivity analysis.
Attention probing thresholds and settings = 5 denoising steps; 75th percentile CA binarization; 90th percentile background activation; 8x8 SA resolution; 16x16 CA r
Chosen by hand in Appendix A; the paper notes thresholds in [70,80] yield similar placement but gives no quantitative evidence.
MAA and fine-tuning hyperparameters = reference count |Vref|=K/5 (B=5); t_start=500; CA alignment at 32x32 only; ROI mask threshold 0.3; LangSAM n=8
Hand-set defaults in Appendices B and C that directly affect the consistency alignment and ROI masking; no ablation of these values.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Attention spatial layout stabilizes within the first five denoising steps and proxies the full editing trajectory.
Appendix A.1 asserts this without quantitative comparison of 5-step vs full-step attention; the entire ACP cost saving and distance selection depend on it.
ad hoc to paper The unweighted sum S_ca + S_sa with 'comparable empirical ranges' is a valid objective for editing quality and locality.
Eq. 4; no weights or justification beyond the range claim, and no quantitative link between this score and final edit quality.
domain assumption The ROI Gaussians M_ROI obtained from LangSAM mask lifting with threshold 0.3 correctly bound the target object, and r_obj from the largest eigenvalue of the opacity-weighted covariance captures the object scale.
Section 3.1 and C.2; an incorrect ROI leads to wrong probe distances and masked fine-tuning.
domain assumption Reference views (about 20% of the editing set) and single-resolution 32x32 cross-attention re-rendering provide sufficient information for a well-conditioned shared 3D attention field.
Appendices B.3-B.4; this deviates from VcEdit's all-view, all-layer processing and is justified only by qualitative results, not quantitative ablations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Look Before You Edit: Attention-Guided Camera Placement and Multi-View Alignment for 3D Gaussian Splatting Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIDL6JO5

@misc{pith2026260719777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Look Before You Edit: Attention-Guided Camera Placement and Multi-View Alignment for 3D Gaussian Splatting Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIDL6JO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19777}
}

read the original abstract

Text-driven 3D scene editing with 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) typically applies a 2D diffusion editor to views rendered from fixed training cameras, limiting both the spatial coverage of edits and the user's freedom to target specific objects in complex scenes. We present LB-Edit, a framework that addresses two coupled problems: where to place editing cameras for localized edits, and how to make per-view edits agree with one another so that the 3D scene remains consistent after fine-tuning. First, Attention-Guided Editing Camera Placement (ACP) probes the diffusion model's self- and cross-attention at multiple candidate camera distances to find where attention is well-contained in the region of interest, then places a compact, geometrically diverse editing camera set at that attention-optimal distance. Second, Multi-view Attention Alignment (MAA) steers the editor toward the same edit across views along two axes: it aligns appearance by sharing self-attention features via token-level correspondence, and aligns spatial location by lifting cross-attention maps onto the 3D Gaussians as a shared 3D attention field, suppressing both appearance and spatial drift. Experiments on multi-object and single-object scenes show that our method achieves the highest user preference in instruction fidelity, multi-view consistency, and editing locality, using as few as 5 editing views and reducing latency by up to 7x over existing methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19777 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** LB-Edit. COLMAP cameras are optimized for reconstruction, not editing: target objects may be cropped or observed from views that are too distant for reliable attention localization. Given a text-specified ROI, our method selects a compact set of editing-aware views at attention-effective distances, enabling more localized 3DGS edits with substantially lower latency than prior methods. Text-driven 3D scene editing wi… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed framework. Given a source 3DGS, an ROI mask, and a text editing prompt, our method first performs Attention-Guided Editing Camera Placement (ACP) to identify editing-aware viewpoints. We probe candidate camera distances using few-step diffusion and select views where self-attention remains well contained within the target region while cross-attention reliably localizes the edit. From the opt… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Qualitative comparison. Three editing tasks on multi-object and single-object scenes, compared against GSEditor, VcEdit, and DGE. Colored dashed boxes highlight characteristic baseline failures: red for view-dependent 3DGS artifacts and broken multi-view consistency, yellow for low instruction fidelity, and blue for edits that leak outside the target region. Our method produces edits that are simultaneously faithful… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ablation studies. (a) Ablation on Attention-Guided Editing Camera Placement (Sec. 3.1). (b) Ablation on Multi-View Attention Alignment for consistent editing (Sec. 3.2). that contain multiple objects, the ROI often occupies only a small fraction of the COLMAP rendering…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance–efficiency trade-off on the room scene (“Turn the dinosaur color into green”). CLIP similarity (↑) against the number of editing views. With only 5 ACP-selected editing cameras (89 s), our method matches the CLIPsim of DGE at 60 views (231 s) and exceeds th…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: We provide additional qualitative comparisons. Overall, our method consistently achieves higher instruction fidelity, better multiview consistency, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Additional qualitative comparisons. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Consistent multi-view edits. DGE (COLMAP cameras) vs. Ours (ACP cameras) on two instance-level transformations. DGE exhibits view-dependent artifacts such as missing or duplicated geometry (yellow boxes), while our method produces consistent edits across all viewpoints…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Editing with only 5 views. DGE selects 5 random COLMAP cameras, leading to global color bleeding and rendering artifacts (red spiky Gaussians, blurry green clouds). Our ACP cameras focus on the target object, producing clean edits even with very few views. sufficient v…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: User study interface. Participants are shown four anonymized editing results side by side and asked to select the best one based on instruction fidelity, multi-view consistency, and editing locality. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

, title =

Brooks, Tim and Holynski, Aleksander and Efros, Alexei A. , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =
[2]

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =

Chen, Minghao and Laina, Iro and Vedaldi, Andrea , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72904-1_5 , note =

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72904-1_5
[3]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

Chen, Yiwen and Chen, Zilong and Zhang, Chi and Wang, Feng and Yang, Xiaofeng and Wang, Yikai and Cai, Zhongang and Yang, Lei and Liu, Huaping and Lin, Guosheng , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =. 2024 , doi =

2024
[4]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume =

Dong, Jiahua and Wang, Yu-Xiong , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume =
[5]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Geyer, Michal and Bar-Tal, Omer and Bagon, Shai and Dekel, Tali , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[6]

and Holynski, Aleksander and Kanazawa, Angjoo , title =

Haque, Ayaan and Tancik, Matthew and Efros, Alexei A. and Holynski, Aleksander and Kanazawa, Angjoo , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =
[7]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Hertz, Amir and Mokady, Ron and Tenenbaum, Jay and Aberman, Kfir and Pritch, Yael and Cohen-Or, Daniel , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[8]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

Huang, Junchao and Hu, Xinting and Shi, Shaoshuai and Tian, Zhuotao and Jiang, Li , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

Show all 27 references

[9]

ACM Transactions on Graphics , volume =

Kerbl, Bernhard and Kopanas, Georgios and Leimk. ACM Transactions on Graphics , volume =. 2023 , publisher =

2023
[10]

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages =

Khalid, Umar and Iqbal, Hasan and Farooq, Azib and Hua, Jing and Chen, Chen , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73404-5_5 , note =

2024 doi
[11]

and Lo, Wan-Yen and Doll

Kirillov, Alexander and Mintun, Eric and Ravi, Nikhila and Mao, Hanzi and Rolland, Chloe and Gustafson, Laura and Xiao, Tete and Whitehead, Spencer and Berg, Alexander C. and Lo, Wan-Yen and Doll. Segment Anything , booktitle =
[12]

2023 , howpublished =

Medeiros, Luca , title =. 2023 , howpublished =

2023
[13]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

Lee, Dong In and Park, Hyeongcheol and Seo, Jiyoung and Park, Eunbyung and Park, Hyunje and Baek, Ha Dam and Shin, Sangheon and Kim, Sangmin and Kim, Sangpil , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =
[14]

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =

Liu, Shilong and Zeng, Zhaoyang and Ren, Tianhe and Li, Feng and Zhang, Hao and Yang, Jie and Li, Chunyuan and Yang, Jianwei and Su, Hang and Zhu, Jun and Zhang, Lei , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =
[15]

IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , year =

Luo, Chaofan and Di, Donglin and Yang, Xun and Ma, Yongjia and Xue, Zhou and Chen, Wei and Gou, Xiaofei and Liu, Yebin , title =. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , year =. doi:10.1109/TMM.2025.3557618 , note =

2025
[16]

and Tancik, Matthew and Barron, Jonathan T

Mildenhall, Ben and Srinivasan, Pratul P. and Tancik, Matthew and Barron, Jonathan T. and Ramamoorthi, Ravi and Ng, Ren , title =. Communications of the ACM , volume =. 2021 , publisher =

2021
[17]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

Patashnik, Or and Wu, Zongze and Shechtman, Eli and Cohen-Or, Daniel and Lischinski, Dani , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =
[18]

and Mildenhall, Ben , title =

Poole, Ben and Jain, Ajay and Barron, Jonathan T. and Mildenhall, Ben , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[19]

2025 , eprint =

Qu, Huaizhi and Zhang, Ruichen and Luo, Shuqing and Qi, Luchao and Zhang, Zhihao and Liu, Xiaoming and Sengupta, Roni and Chen, Tianlong , title =. 2025 , eprint =

2025
[20]

High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models , booktitle =

Rombach, Robin and Blattmann, Andreas and Lorenz, Dominik and Esser, Patrick and Ommer, Bj. High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models , booktitle =
[21]

Structure-from-Motion Revisited , booktitle =

Sch. Structure-from-Motion Revisited , booktitle =
[22]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

Wang, Junjie and Fang, Jiemin and Zhang, Xiaopeng and Xie, Lingxi and Tian, Qi , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =
[23]

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages =

Wang, Yuxuan and Yi, Xuanyu and Wu, Zike and Zhao, Na and Chen, Long and Zhang, Hanwang , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72761-0_23 , note =

2024 doi
[24]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

Wen, Minghao and Wu, Shengjie and Wang, Kangkan and Liang, Dong , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =
[25]

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages =

Wu, Jing and Bian, Jia-Wang and Li, Xinghui and Wang, Guangrun and Reid, Ian and Torr, Philip and Prisacariu, Victor Adrian , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages =. 2024 , publisher =

2024
[26]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

Zhang, Lvmin and Rao, Anyi and Agrawala, Maneesh , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =
[27]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.11868 , abstract =

Wang, Yuxuan and Yi, Xuanyu and Wu, Zike and Zhao, Na and Chen, Long and Zhang, Hanwang , month = feb, year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.11868 , abstract =

doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, title =

Brooks, Tim and Holynski, Aleksander and Efros, Alexei A. , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

[2] [2]

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =

Chen, Minghao and Laina, Iro and Vedaldi, Andrea , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72904-1_5 , note =

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72904-1_5

[3] [3]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

Chen, Yiwen and Chen, Zilong and Zhang, Chi and Wang, Feng and Yang, Xiaofeng and Wang, Yikai and Cai, Zhongang and Yang, Lei and Liu, Huaping and Lin, Guosheng , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =. 2024 , doi =

2024

[4] [4]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume =

Dong, Jiahua and Wang, Yu-Xiong , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume =

[5] [5]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Geyer, Michal and Bar-Tal, Omer and Bagon, Shai and Dekel, Tali , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

[6] [6]

and Holynski, Aleksander and Kanazawa, Angjoo , title =

Haque, Ayaan and Tancik, Matthew and Efros, Alexei A. and Holynski, Aleksander and Kanazawa, Angjoo , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

[7] [7]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Hertz, Amir and Mokady, Ron and Tenenbaum, Jay and Aberman, Kfir and Pritch, Yael and Cohen-Or, Daniel , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

[8] [8]

Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =

Huang, Junchao and Hu, Xinting and Shi, Shaoshuai and Tian, Zhuotao and Jiang, Li , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages =