Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Sequence Matters: Harnessing Video Models in 3D Super-Resolution

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ordering unordered views as video lets off-the-shelf VSR beat dedicated 3D super-resolution.

desk verdict A simple, well-ablated ordering trick for VSR-based 3D super-resolution, but the SOTA claim is undermined by metric-background ambiguity and an internal numbers inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11525 v3 pith:5MEEFA6K submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Hyun-kyu Ko , Dongheok Park , Youngin Park , Byeonghyeon Lee , Juhee Han , Eunbyung Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dsuper-resolutionvideomulti-viewimageorderingGaussianSplattingneuralradiancefieldsORBfeaturesadaptive-lengthsubsequenceviewconsistency
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

This paper claims that the order in which low-resolution multi-view images are fed to a video super-resolution (VSR) model determines whether the model can act as a 3D super-resolution engine. The authors propose two simple ordering algorithms—a greedy nearest-neighbor chain and an adaptive-length subsequence scheme—that arrange the unordered images into video-like sequences using ORB feature similarity and camera-pose similarity. Because the input frames are the original ground-truth low-resolution images rather than renderings from a low-resolution 3D model, the VSR model avoids the stripy and blob-like artifacts that earlier VSR-based approaches suffered from. With no fine-tuning of the VSR backbone, the method reaches state-of-the-art PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on the NeRF-synthetic Blender and Mip-NeRF 360 benchmarks, beating both single-image-super-resolution pipelines and the prior VSR-based SuperGaussian.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ordering of unordered multi-view images into video-like sequences. The paper defines a good video as one in which each frame is similar to its adjacent frames, and generates such sequences with a greedy nearest-neighbor search (Algorithm 1) using either ORB feature Hamming distance or camera-pose distance as the similarity measure, plus an adaptive-length subsequence algorithm (Algorithm 2) with multi-threshold generation that produces multiple smoother subsequences from different starting images. The pre-trained VSR model (PSRT is the default backbone) then upsamples each subsequence, and the upsampled frames are aggregated and used to train 3DGS with a sub-pixel loss that regularizes inconsistent high-frequency details.

What would settle it

Train or fine-tune the same VSR model on truly random permutations of the low-resolution multi-view images and compare the resulting 3D reconstruction PSNR with the proposed ORB/pose-ordered pipeline; if random orderings match or exceed the ordered ones, then the ordering is not what drives the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a pre-trained video super-resolution model trained on natural videos can outperform dedicated 3D super-resolution methods as long as the unordered multi-view images are first reordered into a sequence whose consecutive frames are mutually similar. The paper demonstrates this with a simple greedy algorithm that repeatedly links each frame to its nearest neighbor, and an adaptive-length subsequence variant that breaks chains when similarity falls below a threshold and generates multiple overlapping sequences from every starting image. These sequences are upsampled by the VSR model and aggregated, then used to train a 3D Gaussian Splatting model with a sub-pixel consistency loss. On the Blender and Mip-NeRF 360 benchmarks, this pipeline improves over all reported SISR- and render-based 3D super-resolution baselines, closing much of the gap to the ground-truth upper bound.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a video super-resolution model trained on natural videos can extract useful temporal information from a sequence of static multi-view images that are linked only by visual or pose similarity, even when the implied motion is irregular or abrupt; if that premise fails, the ordering provides no benefit and the method degrades to per-image super-resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any pre-trained VSR model can be dropped into the pipeline without fine-tuning, making 3D super-resolution a data-ordering problem rather than a model-training problem.
  • The ordering algorithms generalize across VSR backbones (VRT, IART, PSRT), with consistent gains over single-image processing.
  • The approach avoids the distribution-shift artifacts of render-based pipelines because the VSR model sees original ground-truth images, not renderings from a low-resolution 3D model.
  • The sub-pixel loss stabilizes 3DGS training on upsampled images, improving view consistency and closing part of the gap to high-resolution-trained upper bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same ordering principle could be applied to other multi-view tasks that feed temporal models, such as video-diffusion-based novel view synthesis or multi-frame deblurring, where a good ordering may be as important as the model itself.
  • Because the ordering uses only pairwise similarity, it could be computed in an online or streaming setting, enabling VSR-based super-resolution for unordered image collections captured by casual cameras without pose estimation.
  • The adaptive-length subsequence with multi-threshold suggests a general recipe: use strict similarity thresholds where data is dense and relax them where data is sparse; this may transfer to other sequence-modeling applications where ordering is combinatorial.
  • Replacing ORB with learned local features or semantic similarity might improve ordering on scenes with repetitive texture or wide baselines, a plausible testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 3D super-resolution pipeline that reorders low-resolution (LR) multi-view images into video-like sequences, upscales them with a pre-trained video super-resolution (VSR) model, and then trains a 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) model on the upscaled images. The ordering is performed by simple greedy and adaptive-length subsequence algorithms using ORB feature similarity or camera-pose similarity, and a multi-threshold mechanism is introduced to handle variable scene density. The authors report state-of-the-art results on NeRF-Synthetic (Blender) and Mip-NeRF 360, with internal ablations showing consistent improvements from the proposed ordering across three VSR backbones (VRT, IART, PSRT) relative to single-image upsampling and the simple greedy ordering.

Significance. If the evaluation is sound, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it shows that a lightweight, training-free ordering of raw LR images can make pre-trained VSR models effective for multi-view 3D super-resolution, avoiding the expensive 3DGS rendering and fine-tuning used by prior VSR-based work (e.g., SuperGaussian). The ablations across three VSR backbones are a genuine strength, as is the use of held-out test views for the final 3D reconstruction comparison. However, the headline state-of-the-art claim depends on cross-method comparisons whose metric background protocol is explicitly acknowledged to be ambiguous, and the manuscript contains internal numerical inconsistencies in the reported baselines. These issues must be resolved before the SOTA claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 3] The paper's central SOTA claim is undermined by the unresolved background-compositing ambiguity. In Section 4.1 the authors state that Blender metrics are measured on a black background, that white-background compositing degrades PSNR by about 0.3–0.4, and that they are 'unable to determine which background' prior works used. Since several baseline numbers in Table 3 are taken directly from those prior papers and may have been evaluated on white backgrounds, the comparison may be apples-to-oranges. The authors need to provide a like-for-like evaluation: at minimum, report their method's metrics under both black and white backgrounds, re-run the available baselines under the same protocol, and clearly state the sensitivity of the ranking to the background choice.
  2. [Table 3 vs Tables 6–8; Table 12 vs Tables 9–11] There are unexplained internal numerical inconsistencies in the reported baseline results. NeRF-SR is listed as PSNR 28.46, SSIM 0.9210, LPIPS 0.0760 in Table 3, but the per-object averages in Tables 6–8 are 28.21, 0.9180, and 0.0990, respectively. Likewise, in the Mip-NeRF 360 results, Table 12 reports 3DGS-HR with SSIM 0.7710 and LPIPS 0.2802, whereas the per-scene averages in Tables 10 and 11 are 0.7962 and 0.2550. Since these are presumably the same models and the same evaluation set, the discrepancies need to be explained or corrected; otherwise the reliability of the comparison tables is called into question.
  3. [Appendix B, Section 3.3] The hyperparameter specification for the adaptive-length subsequence method is not fully reproducible. Appendix B first says that for Blender the ordering uses ORB features with pose-based thresholds, and for Mip-NeRF 360 the ordering uses pose with ORB-feature thresholds, but then states 'we set the three thresholds (angle between two camera positions) to 15°, 30°, 45° on both Blender dataset. We set two thresholds (the number of candidates by distances) to 30 and 50' without clarifying which threshold set applies to which dataset or which similarity measure. The stopping condition in Algorithm 2 also uses an undefined ε. The authors should give a single coherent specification of all thresholds, how they are combined across the multi-threshold scheme, and whether they are tuned on the test set.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] The text contains a typo: 'Since ASL offers' should read 'Since ALS offers' (adaptive-length subsequence).
  2. [Author affiliations] The affiliation 'Samsung Electorics' is misspelled; it should be 'Samsung Electronics'.
  3. [Algorithm 2] The stopping threshold in line 5 is written as 'sim(S(i)_j, S(i)_{j+1}) < ϵ' but ϵ is never defined in the main text; it should be linked to the angle/distance thresholds described in Appendix B.
  4. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'The sub-pixel loss Lsp is LR 3DGS loss' is confusing; clarify that Lsp is computed between the original LR images and bicubic-downsampled rendered images.
  5. [Table 12] The caption in Table 12 says 'Ours' while the per-scene tables and main text refer to 'Ours-ALS'; this should be made consistent.
  6. [Appendix B] The sentence 'we set the three thresholds ... on both Blender dataset' is grammatically unclear and should be rewritten to specify that the angle thresholds are used for the Blender dataset and the candidate-distance thresholds are used for the Mip-NeRF 360 dataset, or vice versa, as appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ordering-plus-VSR pipeline is evaluated against held-out reconstruction metrics, and no central claim reduces to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: take raw unordered LR multi-view images, order them into video-like subsequences using ORB feature similarity or camera pose similarity (Alg. 1 and 2), feed them to a pre-trained external VSR backbone (PSRT, trained on Vimeo-90K), upsample, and then fit a 3D Gaussian Splatting model. The final claim — state-of-the-art 3D super-resolution — is measured by PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on held-out test views of Blender and Mip-NeRF 360, not by the ORB/pose similarity criterion used to build the sequences. The improvement of ALS over the simple greedy algorithm is likewise reported in downstream reconstruction metrics after 3DGS fitting, so it is an empirical result rather than a consequence of the ordering definition. The hyperparameters (15/30/45 degree thresholds, candidate counts 30/50) are selected on the same benchmarks, which is a generalization or overfitting concern, but they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, so this does not constitute definitional circularity. The paper also explicitly acknowledges uncertainty about prior baselines' background protocols; that is a comparability threat to the SOTA claim, not a circular-derivation issue. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the VSR model, 3DGS, and datasets are all external, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or prior-work-by-the-same-authors is invoked to force the method. The only definitional overlap is that 'misalignment' in Appendix C is defined using the same 45-degree angular criterion used by the pose thresholds, but this is a diagnostic auxiliary analysis, not the headline performance claim. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked, with no step that is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or model entities. The free parameters are all hyperparameters of the ordering and training losses, selected per dataset. The central assumptions are about transfer of pre-trained VSR models and the degradation model.

free parameters (5)
  • angle threshold for adaptive-length subsequence = 15, 30, 45 degrees (Blender)
    Used in the multi-threshold subsequence generation to stop sequence building when consecutive frames differ by more than the threshold; chosen per dataset in Appendix B and not justified by a principled criterion.
  • candidate distance thresholds = 30 and 50 (Mip-NeRF 360)
    Thresholds for the number of candidates by distance in the Mip-NeRF 360 ordering; selected per dataset in Appendix B.
  • loss weight lambda_ren = 0.6 (Blender), 0.4 (Mip-NeRF 360)
    Weights the rendering loss against the sub-pixel constraint in Equation (5); tuned per dataset.
  • lambda_1 in sub-pixel loss = 0.2
    Fixed weight combining L1 and SSIM losses in Equations (3)-(4); hand-chosen.
  • similarity measure selection = ORB for Blender, pose for Mip-NeRF 360
    The paper swaps which similarity is used for ordering versus thresholding depending on dataset (Appendix B), a per-dataset design choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained VSR models trained on natural videos (Vimeo-90K) generalize to multi-view image sequences of static scenes.
    The entire method relies on off-the-shelf VSR backbones (PSRT, VRT, IART) without fine-tuning; invoked in Sections 1 and 3.
  • domain assumption 3DGS trained on upsampled HR images produces better 3D reconstructions than 3DGS trained on LR images.
    The evaluation and method assume that super-resolving the training views improves the final 3D model; this is the premise of the 3D super-resolution task.
  • domain assumption Bicubic downsampling is the correct degradation model for generating LR images.
    The LR datasets are created by bicubic downsampling of HR images (Section 4.1), and the sub-pixel loss uses bicubic downsampling to match; real-world LR images may follow different degradations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequence Matters: Harnessing Video Models in 3D Super-Resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MEEFA6K

@misc{pith2026241211525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequence Matters: Harnessing Video Models in 3D Super-Resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MEEFA6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11525}
}
read the original abstract

3D super-resolution aims to reconstruct high-fidelity 3D models from low-resolution (LR) multi-view images. Early studies primarily focused on single-image super-resolution (SISR) models to upsample LR images into high-resolution images. However, these methods often lack view consistency because they operate independently on each image. Although various post-processing techniques have been extensively explored to mitigate these inconsistencies, they have yet to fully resolve the issues. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive study of 3D super-resolution by leveraging video super-resolution (VSR) models. By utilizing VSR models, we ensure a higher degree of spatial consistency and can reference surrounding spatial information, leading to more accurate and detailed reconstructions. Our findings reveal that VSR models can perform remarkably well even on sequences that lack precise spatial alignment. Given this observation, we propose a simple yet practical approach to align LR images without involving fine-tuning or generating 'smooth' trajectory from the trained 3D models over LR images. The experimental results show that the surprisingly simple algorithms can achieve the state-of-the-art results of 3D super-resolution tasks on standard benchmark datasets, such as the NeRF-synthetic and MipNeRF-360 datasets. Project page: https://ko-lani.github.io/Sequence-Matters

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of stripy or blob-like artifacts generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed method. Given LR multi-view images, we generate subsequences (Sec. 3.3) starting from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of subsequence generation. (a) is an un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example result from the simple greedy algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on the NeRF-synthetic dataset. The PSNR values against GT are embedded in each image patch. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results on Mip-NeRF 360 dataset. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison with baselines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Misalignment trends within a sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Misalignment Error. from the transformation matrix. We classify a frame as mis￾aligned if the consecutive images exhibit an angular differ￾ence greater than 45◦ , when measured between the vectors drawn from the camera positions to the origin. To demonstrate the impact…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results on the NeRF-synthetic dataset. The PSNR values against GT are embedded in each image patch. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SuperGS: Consistent and Detailed 3D Super-Resolution Scene Reconstruction via Gaussian Splatting

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SuperGS outperforms prior Gaussian-splatting methods on high-resolution novel view synthesis by combining a latent feature field, multi-view voting densification, and variational uncertainty weighting.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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, 5855--5864

    2021

  2. [2]

    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, 5470--5479

    2022

  3. [3]

    Bay, H.; Tuytelaars, T.; and Van Gool, L. 2006. Surf: Speeded up robust features. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2006: 9th European Conference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-13, 2006. Proceedings, Part I 9, 404--417. Springer

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Calonder, M.; Lepetit, V.; Strecha, C.; and Fua, P. 2010. Brief: Binary robust independent elementary features. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2010: 11th European Conference on Computer Vision, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 5-11, 2010, Proceedings, Part IV 11, 778--792. Springer

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    C.; Wang, X.; Yu, K.; Dong, C.; and Loy, C

    Chan, K. C.; Wang, X.; Yu, K.; Dong, C.; and Loy, C. C. 2021. Basicvsr: The search for essential components in video super-resolution and beyond. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4947--4956

    2021

  6. [6]

    C.; Zhou, S.; Xu, X.; and Loy, C

    Chan, K. C.; Zhou, S.; Xu, X.; and Loy, C. C. 2022. Basicvsr++: Improving video super-resolution with enhanced propagation and alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5972--5981

    2022

  7. [7]

    Chen, A.; Xu, Z.; Geiger, A.; Yu, J.; and Su, H. 2022. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In European conference on computer vision, 333--350. Springer

    2022

  8. [8]

    Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Zhou, J.; Qiao, Y.; and Dong, C. 2023. Activating more pixels in image super-resolution transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 22367--22377

    2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Fan, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, M.; Li, H.; and Zhang, Z. 2024. Trim 3D Gaussian Splatting for Accurate Geometry Representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07499

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Feng, X.; He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, C.; Kuang, Z.; Ding, J.; Qin, F.; Yu, J.; and Fan, J. 2024 a . ZS-SRT: An efficient zero-shot super-resolution training method for Neural Radiance Fields. Neurocomputing, 590: 127714

    2024

  3. [11]

    Feng, X.; He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Kuang, Z.; Jun, Y.; Fan, J.; et al. 2024 b . SRGS: Super-Resolution 3D Gaussian Splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10318

    2024

  4. [12]

    Fridovich-Keil, S.; Yu, A.; Tancik, M.; Chen, Q.; Recht, B.; and Kanazawa, A. 2022. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5501--5510

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gu \'e don, A.; and Lepetit, V. 2024. Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5354--5363

    2024

  6. [14]

    Han, Y.; Yu, T.; Yu, X.; Wang, Y.; and Dai, Q. 2023. Super-NeRF: View-consistent Detail Generation for NeRF super-resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13518

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Huang, B.; Yu, Z.; Chen, A.; Geiger, A.; and Gao, S. 2024. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, 1--11

    2024

  8. [16]

    Kerbl, B.; Kopanas, G.; Leimk \"u hler, T.; and Drettakis, G. 2023. 3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4): 139--1

    2023

  9. [17]

    L.; Li, C.; and Lee, G

    Lee, J. L.; Li, C.; and Lee, G. H. 2024. DiSR-NeRF: Diffusion-Guided View-Consistent Super-Resolution NeRF. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20561--20570

    2024

  10. [18]

    Liang, J.; Cao, J.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, K.; Ranjan, R.; Li, Y.; Timofte, R.; and Van Gool, L. 2024. Vrt: A video restoration transformer. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

    2024

  11. [19]

    Liang, J.; Cao, J.; Sun, G.; Zhang, K.; Van Gool, L.; and Timofte, R. 2021. Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 1833--1844

    2021

  12. [20]

    Lim, B.; Son, S.; Kim, H.; Nah, S.; and Mu Lee, K. 2017. Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 136--144

    2017

  13. [21]

    Lin, C.-Y.; Fu, Q.; Merth, T.; Yang, K.; and Ranjan, A. 2024. Fastsr-nerf: Improving nerf efficiency on consumer devices with a simple super-resolution pipeline. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 6036--6045

    2024

  14. [22]

    Liu, R.; Wu, R.; Van Hoorick, B.; Tokmakov, P.; Zakharov, S.; and Vondrick, C. 2023. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9298--9309

    2023

  15. [23]

    Lowe, D. G. 2004. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International journal of computer vision, 60: 91--110

    2004

  16. [24]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2021. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1): 99--106

    2021

  17. [25]

    M \"u ller, T.; Evans, A.; Schied, C.; and Keller, A. 2022. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4): 1--15

    2022

  18. [26]

    T.; and Mildenhall, B

    Poole, B.; Jain, A.; Barron, J. T.; and Mildenhall, B. 2022. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  20. [28]

    Rosten, E.; and Drummond, T. 2006. Machine learning for high-speed corner detection. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2006: 9th European Conference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-13, 2006. Proceedings, Part I 9, 430--443. Springer

    2006

  21. [29]

    Rublee, E.; Rabaud, V.; Konolige, K.; and Bradski, G. 2011. ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2564--2571. IEEE

    2011

  22. [30]

    J.; Wang, S.; and Fr \"u st \"u ck, A

    Shen, Y.; Ceylan, D.; Guerrero, P.; Xu, Z.; Mitra, N. J.; Wang, S.; and Fr \"u st \"u ck, A. 2024. SuperGaussian: Repurposing Video Models for 3D Super Resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00609

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Shi, S.; Gu, J.; Xie, L.; Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; and Dong, C. 2022. Rethinking alignment in video super-resolution transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 36081--36093

    2022

  24. [32]

    Tian, Y.; Chen, H.; Xu, C.; and Wang, Y. 2024. Image Processing GNN: Breaking Rigidity in Super-Resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24108--24117

    2024

  25. [33]

    Voleti, V.; Yao, C.-H.; Boss, M.; Letts, A.; Pankratz, D.; Tochilkin, D.; Laforte, C.; Rombach, R.; and Jampani, V. 2024. Sv3d: Novel multi-view synthesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12008

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wang, C.; Wu, X.; Guo, Y.-C.; Zhang, S.-H.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Hu, S.-M. 2022. Nerf-sr: High quality neural radiance fields using supersampling. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 6445--6454

    2022

  27. [35]

    Wang, P.; Liu, L.; Liu, Y.; Theobalt, C.; Komura, T.; and Wang, W. 2021. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

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

    2024

  29. [37]

    Wang, X.; Yu, K.; Wu, S.; Gu, J.; Liu, Y.; Dong, C.; Qiao, Y.; and Change Loy, C. 2018. Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops, 0--0

    2018

  30. [38]

    Wu, Z.; Wan, Z.; Zhang, J.; Liao, J.; and Xu, D. 2024. RaFE: Generative Radiance Fields Restoration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03654

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Xie, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, Y.; and Pan, C. 2024. SuperGS: Super-Resolution 3D Gaussian Splatting via Latent Feature Field and Gradient-guided Splitting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02571

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    B.; and Yao, A

    Xu, K.; Yu, Z.; Wang, X.; Mi, M. B.; and Yao, A. 2024 a . Enhancing Video Super-Resolution via Implicit Resampling-based Alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2546--2555

    2024

  33. [41]

    Xu, Y.; Park, T.; Zhang, R.; Zhou, Y.; Shechtman, E.; Liu, F.; Huang, J.-B.; and Liu, D. 2024 b . VideoGigaGAN: Towards Detail-rich Video Super-Resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12388

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Yariv, L.; Gu, J.; Kasten, Y.; and Lipman, Y. 2021. Volume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 4805--4815

    2021

  35. [43]

    P.; Szeliski, R.; Barron, J

    Yariv, L.; Hedman, P.; Reiser, C.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Szeliski, R.; Barron, J. T.; and Mildenhall, B. 2023. Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real-time view synthesis. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, 1--9

    2023

  36. [44]

    Yoon, Y.; and Yoon, K.-J. 2023. Cross-guided optimization of radiance fields with multi-view image super-resolution for high-resolution novel view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 12428--12438

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yu, X.; Zhu, H.; He, T.; and Chen, Z. 2024 a . GaussianSR: 3D Gaussian Super-Resolution with 2D Diffusion Priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10111

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yu, Z.; Chen, A.; Huang, B.; Sattler, T.; and Geiger, A. 2024 b . Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19447--19456

    2024

  39. [47]

    Zhang, K.; Liang, J.; Van Gool, L.; and Timofte, R. 2021. Designing a practical degradation model for deep blind image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4791--4800

    2021

  40. [48]

    Zuo, Q.; Gu, X.; Qiu, L.; Dong, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Yuan, W.; Peng, R.; Zhu, S.; Dong, Z.; Bo, L.; et al. 2024. Videomv: Consistent multi-view generation based on large video generative model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12010

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    , " * 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...

  42. [50]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.