Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

EasySplat: View-Adaptive Learning makes 3D Gaussian Splatting Easy

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EasySplat claims that two targeted changes to 3D Gaussian Splatting — a view-similarity grouping rule for pointmap initialization and a nearest-neighbor-based splitting rule — make the method easier to initialize and better at filling in…

desk verdict Plausible DUSt3R-based initialization and a simple KNN densification rule, but the SOTA claim is overstated and the grouping heuristic is under-validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01003 v2 pith:A3PFA4Z4 submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CV

Ao Gao , Luosong Guo , Tao Chen , Zhao Wang , Ying Tai , Jian Yang , Zhenyu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords novelviewsynthesis3DGaussianSplattingpointmapinitializationview-adaptivegroupingKNN-baseddensificationcameraposeestimationDUSt3Radaptivedensitycontrol
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

EasySplat claims that two targeted changes make 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) both easier to initialize and better at filling missing detail. Instead of running a classic structure-from-motion pipeline, it cuts a dense image sequence into groups at the largest visual-similarity drops and pairs every non-reference frame in a group with the group's reference frame; those pairs feed a learned pointmap model whose pairwise reconstructions are globally aligned into camera poses and a point cloud. During training, it replaces the usual gradient-threshold densification with a rule that compares each Gaussian ellipsoid to the mean shape of its $k$ nearest neighbors and splits it when it is much larger. The paper reports that this combination reaches a mean PSNR of 33.800 and LPIPS of 0.056 on Tanks & Temples, ahead of the compared baselines, and also improves camera-pose accuracy over a COLMAP-free baseline on CO3DV2.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing mechanisms are the view-adaptive group initialization (Eqs. 1–4) and the KNN-based densification (Eq. 7). The grouping mechanism computes the cosine similarity of adjacent frames, forms the array $\Delta$ of differences between consecutive similarity values, cuts the sequence where $\Delta$ is largest ($k=2$ in the experiments), and matches every non-reference image in each group to that group's reference image; the resulting pairs are fed to a pretrained pointmap model (a model that predicts a 3D point map for an image pair), and Eq. (4) globally aligns the pairwise pointmaps into poses and a point cloud. The densification mechanism takes each Gaussian ellipsoid, finds its $n$ nearest neighbors (with $n=64$), averages their covariances to get $\bar{\Sigma}_{3d}$, and splits the ellipsoid when its own covariance is larger than this local average. Together they replace the two components the paper identifies as limiting: SfM-based sparse point initialization and gradient-threshold Adaptive Density Control.

What would settle it

Take a scene where the two largest similarity gaps do not correspond to coherent viewpoint clusters (e.g., a textureless corridor with periodic appearance or a sequence with one large leap inside an otherwise dense orbit), run EasySplat's grouping with $k=2$, and compare the resulting ATE/RPE and final PSNR against a one-reference pairing of the same frames; if global alignment errors jump and render quality drops well below the oneref baseline, the grouping heuristic is the failing link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the two most fragile parts of 3DGS — how the scene is initialized and when Gaussians are split — can both be fixed without adding heavy machinery. For initialization, it shows that a view-adaptive grouping rule (split the sequence at the $k$ largest gaps in adjacent-frame cosine similarity, then pair each non-reference view with that group's reference view) produces pointmap pairs whose global alignment is both memory-feasible on dense scenes and more accurate than a complete graph or a single-reference scheme. For optimization, it shows that splitting a Gaussian when its covariance exceeds the mean covariance of its $n$ nearest neighbors densifies regions where the initial point cloud is thin, recovering fine structure such as small objects. With those two components, EasySplat claims the best novel view synthesis results among the compared methods on Tanks & Temples and markedly better pose estimation than the compared COLMAP-free baseline on the harder CO3DV2 sequences.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two largest drops in adjacent-frame cosine similarity divide a dense sequence into groups in which every non-reference frame overlaps the group's reference frame well enough for pairwise pointmap alignment; the paper validates this heuristic with a single ablative comparison on the Church scene, so if the grouping misfires in other capture patterns the estimated poses and point cloud degrade before training can compensate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense-view Gaussian splatting can be initialized without SfM: the grouping rule turns a costly complete pairing into a small set of pairs (1,142 instead of 159,600 on the Church scene), making learned pointmap priors practical for hundreds of input images.
  • If the KNN-split criterion is right, densification stops depending on gradient magnitude alone and becomes sensitive to local geometric scale, which is what lets it grow points in under-initialized regions and sharpen small objects.
  • Because camera poses are estimated alongside the point cloud, the method offers a route to pose-free novel view synthesis: pose errors on CO3DV2 improve over the compared non-COLMAP baseline while rendering quality also rises.
  • The reported Tanks & Temples numbers (mean PSNR 33.800, SSIM 0.953, LPIPS 0.056) put the full pipeline above ScaffoldGS and Mip-Splatting on the same benchmark, suggesting the two modifications compound rather than merely trade off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One editorial extension the paper only gestures at is adaptive group counting: using a similarity threshold or a learned overlap estimate to choose $k$ instead of fixing $k=2$ could make the grouping rule transfer to sparse-view, exploratory, or orbit-like capture, and the grouping itself could be tested per group by measuring pairwise overlap before global alignment.
  • Because the KNN-split rule is parameter-light and orthogonal to gradient-based adaptive density control, it could plausibly be grafted onto anchor-based Gaussian methods or frequency-based densifiers; that is my inference, not a claim the paper tests.
  • A practical ceiling implied by the design is that the whole pipeline inherits the failure modes of the pretrained pointmap model: scenes with large appearance changes or low texture may still produce poor pairs even when grouping is perfect, so per-group pose accuracy should be monitored rather than assumed.
  • A testable extension from the paper's Table 1 is to replace the manual $k=2$ with a data-driven group count and check whether the known trade-off (more pairs improve pose but inflate GPU memory) can be optimized per scene.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EasySplat, a 3D Gaussian Splatting framework that replaces SfM initialization with a DUSt3R-based pointmap prior using a view-similarity grouping strategy, and replaces the standard densification rule with a KNN-based adaptive splitting criterion. The authors report state-of-the-art novel view synthesis results on Tanks&Temples and CO3DV2, along with ablations for the two proposed components.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the paper would make a useful contribution by showing that a pointmap-based prior can replace SfM for dense-view 3DGS initialization and that a local-shape-aware densification rule improves rendering quality. The idea of view-adaptive grouping to make pairwise pointmap estimation tractable on dense sequences is reasonable and potentially valuable. However, the current evidence is not fully consistent: the SSIM result in the main comparison does not support the 'best across all metrics' claim, the pose-accuracy claims are contradicted by part of the reported CO3DV2 numbers, and the grouping heuristic is validated on only one scene. The paper does not provide code, repeated runs, or error bars, which limits how strongly the conclusions can be drawn.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Table 2] The text states that 'our method achieves the best performance across all metrics,' but Table 2 does not support this. ScaffoldGS has a higher mean SSIM (0.956 vs. 0.953) and wins on four scenes (Church, Barn, Francis, Ignatius) and ties on two (Museum, Ballroom). The claimed SOTA is therefore only true for mean PSNR and LPIPS. Please revise the claim and discuss the SSIM trade-off explicitly, or provide an explanation for why the average SSIM is lower despite higher PSNR and LPIPS.
  2. [§III.B, Table 1 and Eqs. (2)–(4)] The view-adaptive grouping strategy is load-bearing because all downstream results depend on the resulting point cloud and poses, yet its evaluation is limited to a single scene (Church). On that scene, the proposed grouping has worse ATE than the oneref baseline (0.005 vs. 0.003) while improving PSNR, so the gain cannot be cleanly attributed to more accurate camera poses. No experiment varies k, group size, sequence length, or scene content, and no error bars are reported. The fixed choice k=2 for all sequences leaves open the risk that groups become too long for the reference-to-frame overlap to be sufficient. Please provide per-scene grouping statistics and a sensitivity analysis of k, and verify the pose-quality claim on more scenes.
  3. [§III.C, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The proposed densification condition is not well defined. Eq. (6) compares the covariance matrix Σ3di with the scalar threshold τS, and the subsequent text states 'If Σ3di > ¯Σ3d' comparing two matrices. No partial order on covariance matrices is defined. If the intended comparison is by determinant, trace, or largest eigenvalue, this must be stated explicitly; as written, the method is not reproducible. This is a central part of the second contribution, not just a notation issue.
  4. [§IV.B, Table 3] The CO3DV2 evaluation uses only four scenes, chosen randomly but without listing the scene names, and no repeated runs or confidence intervals are reported. More importantly, the statement that EasySplat 'significantly outperforms CF-3DGS in both novel view synthesis and camera pose estimation' is contradicted by the table: EasySplat has worse RPE t than CF-3DGS on all four scenes (e.g., 0.592 vs. 0.257, 0.427 vs. 0.112) and mixed RPE r results. The claim should be restricted to ATE and NVS metrics, and the pose-error discrepancy should be discussed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 and §III.B] Figure 2 labels the pointmap model as 'MASt3R', while the text describes using 'DUSt3R's pretrained model' and reference [34] is the MASt3R paper. Please align the notation so that the reader knows which pretrained model was actually used.
  2. [References] Several references have corrupted or incomplete author lists, most notably [1] ('Bernhard Müller, Georgios Kerbl, ...' for the 3DGS paper) and [3] (a garbled list starting 'Yang, Sifei Fu, Amey Liu, ...'). These should be corrected to their proper bibliographic entries.
  3. [Table 1] The 'swin' scheme is not defined anywhere in the text. If it refers to a sliding-window pairing strategy, please define it explicitly so that the comparison in Table 1 is interpretable.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The cosine similarity in Eq. (1) treats images as flattened vectors, which implicitly requires identical dimensions and does not account for spatial structure. Please state this assumption explicitly.
  5. [Figure 3 vicinity] A stray Chinese-language heading, '六、策略二消融可视化对比', appears immediately before Figure 3 and should be removed or translated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the held-out NVS metrics are not equivalent by construction to the DUSt3R initialization or the KNN densification rule.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. EasySplat's initialization uses the externally trained DUSt3R pointmap prior for pairwise pointmaps (Section III.B), with a view-adaptive grouping rule (cosine-similarity differences, k=2) that is a fixed heuristic rather than a fitted predictor of the reported metrics. The global alignment in Eq. (4) optimizes point cloud and pose variables against DUSt3R confidences, after which 3DGS is trained and evaluated on held-out test views. The KNN-based densification (Section III.C) is also a deterministic rule: it compares each Gaussian's scale to the mean scale of its n=64 neighbors and splits those exceeding the comparison, with thresholds tau_p and tau_S inherited from vanilla 3DGS. None of these components is defined in terms of the final PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS numbers, and no parameter is fitted to the test-set metrics. The paper does not rest on a load-bearing self-citation: DUSt3R and the baseline methods are external works, and the ablations (Tables 1 and 4) directly measure the effect of removing each proposed component. The hand-chosen hyperparameters k=2 and n=64, validated on a limited set of scenes, raise robustness and generalization concerns but are not circularity.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's contributions are algorithmic; the free parameters are the group count k and KNN size n, plus inherited thresholds, and the key domain assumptions concern the reliability of DUSt3R priors and the two heuristics.

free parameters (3)
  • k (number of groups in view-adaptive grouping) = 2
    Chosen by hand; controls how the image sequence is split into groups for DUSt3R pairing. No sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • n (number of neighbors in KNN search) = 64
    Chosen by hand; used to compute the average neighbor shape for splitting decisions.
  • τp, τS (gradient and scale thresholds) = not specified (inherited from 3DGS)
    These thresholds from vanilla 3DGS are used in the KNN-based split condition, but their values are not reported for reproduction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DUSt3R pretrained pointmap model provides sufficiently accurate dense pointmaps and camera poses for global alignment (Eq. 4).
    The entire initialization pipeline depends on this external model; no fine-tuning or validation on target scenes is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The k-largest cosine similarity differences divide the image sequence into groups with sufficient internal overlap for pairwise matching.
    This heuristic is introduced in Section III.B and is not derived from overlap statistics or validated across scene types.
  • ad hoc to paper Splitting a Gaussian when its shape exceeds the mean shape of its 64 nearest neighbors improves rendering quality in under-densified regions.
    This is a design choice supported only by the ablation in Table 4; the underlying observation of large Gaussians near small ones is informal.
  • standard math The global alignment objective in Eq. (4) can be optimized reliably with standard solvers to a globally consistent solution.
    The paper does not specify the optimizer, initialization, or convergence criteria for Eq. (4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EasySplat: View-Adaptive Learning makes 3D Gaussian Splatting Easy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3PFA4Z4

@misc{pith2026250101003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EasySplat: View-Adaptive Learning makes 3D Gaussian Splatting Easy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3PFA4Z4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01003}
}
read the original abstract

3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) techniques have achieved satisfactory 3D scene representation. Despite their impressive performance, they confront challenges due to the limitation of structure-from-motion (SfM) methods on acquiring accurate scene initialization, or the inefficiency of densification strategy. In this paper, we introduce a novel framework EasySplat to achieve high-quality 3DGS modeling. Instead of using SfM for scene initialization, we employ a novel method to release the power of large-scale pointmap approaches. Specifically, we propose an efficient grouping strategy based on view similarity, and use robust pointmap priors to obtain high-quality point clouds and camera poses for 3D scene initialization. After obtaining a reliable scene structure, we propose a novel densification approach that adaptively splits Gaussian primitives based on the average shape of neighboring Gaussian ellipsoids, utilizing KNN scheme. In this way, the proposed method tackles the limitation on initialization and optimization, leading to an efficient and accurate 3DGS modeling. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EasySplat outperforms the current state-of-the-art (SOTA) in handling novel view synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison with existing methods. (a) Compared with other SOTA methods, our method achieves the best performance in rendering quality. (b) In contrast to the regular densification used in the vanilla 3DGS, our KNN-based densi￾fication effectively grows points in areas where the initial point cloud is insufficient, leading to more accurate and detailed results. ing an end-to-end estimation process based on Transforme… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of proposed EasySplat. Given N images, we first construct image pairs based on view similarity to estimate paired point clouds, followed by global alignment to estimate camera poses and point clouds. During training, we use a KNN￾based adaptive division to control the density of Gaussian distributions while optimizing camera poses. consumes considerable memory, making it less suitable for dense views. Moreo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KNN-based Densification. After the KNN-based splitting, the large Gaussians are decomposed into smaller Gaussians, leading to significant improvements on smaller targets, such as the car depicted in the figure. Although ADC allows the split Gaussians to cover most of the scene, some large Gaussians tend to resist splitting. However, our observations in practical scenarios reveal that Gaussian distributions are uneve… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison for novel view synthesis on Tanks&Temples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison for novel view synthesis and camera pose estimation on CO3DV2. The Gaussian neighborhood parameter n is set to 64. For the pointmap prior model configuration, we employ the DUSt3R model [34], trained at a resolution of 512, using a ViT Large enco…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

    Bernhard M ¨uller, Georgios Kerbl, Thomas Kopanas, George Leimk¨uhler, and Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Structure-from- motion revisited,

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm, “Structure-from- motion revisited,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 4104–4113

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Colmap-free 3d gaussian splatting,

    Yang, Sifei Fu, Amey Liu, Jan Kulkarni, Alexei A Kautz, Xiaolong Efros, and Wang, “Colmap-free 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07504, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy,

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud, “Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20697–20709

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Instantsplat: Unbounded sparse-view pose-free gaus- sian splatting in 40 seconds,

    Zhiwen Fan, Wenyan Cong, Kairun Wen, Kevin Wang, Jian Zhang, Xinghao Ding, Danfei Xu, Boris Ivanovic, Marco Pavone, Georgios Pavlakos, et al., “Instantsplat: Unbounded sparse-view pose-free gaus- sian splatting in 40 seconds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20309 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Localized gaussian point manage- ment,

    Haosen Yang, Chenhao Zhang, Wenqing Wang, Marco V olino, Adrian Hilton, Li Zhang, and Xiatian Zhu, “Localized gaussian point manage- ment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04251 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering,

    Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai, “Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 20654–20664

    2024

  8. [8]

    Octree-gs: Towards consistent real-time rendering with lod-structured 3d gaussians,

    Kerui Ren, Lihan Jiang, Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Zhangkai Ni, and Bo Dai, “Octree-gs: Towards consistent real-time rendering with lod-structured 3d gaussians,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17898 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting,

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger, “Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2024, pp. 19447–19456

    2024

  2. [10]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    V olume rendering,

    Robert A Drebin, Loren Carpenter, and Pat Hanrahan, “V olume rendering,” ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 65– 74, 1988

    1988

  4. [12]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encod- ing,

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encod- ing,” ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) , vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields,

    Alex Yu, Ruilong Li, Matthew Tancik, Hao Li, Ren Ng, and Angjoo Kanazawa, “Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 5752–5761

    2021

  6. [14]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman, “Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 5470–5479

    2022

  7. [15]

    Ewa volume splatting,

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross, “Ewa volume splatting,” in Proceedings Visualization, 2001. VIS’01. IEEE, 2001, pp. 29–538

    2001

  8. [16]

    Multi-scale 3d gaussian splatting for anti-aliased rendering,

    Zhiwen Yan, Weng Fei Low, Yu Chen, and Gim Hee Lee, “Multi-scale 3d gaussian splatting for anti-aliased rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 20923–20931

    2024

  9. [17]

    Radsplat: Radiance field- informed gaussian splatting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ fps,

    Michael Niemeyer, Fabian Manhardt, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Michael Oechsle, Daniel Duckworth, Rama Gosula, Keisuke Tateno, John Bates, Dominik Kaeser, and Federico Tombari, “Radsplat: Radiance field- informed gaussian splatting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ fps,” a...

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fsgs: Real-time few-shot view synthesis using gaussian splatting,

    Zehao Zhu, Zhiwen Fan, Yifan Jiang, and Zhangyang Wang, “Fsgs: Real-time few-shot view synthesis using gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00451, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dngaussian: Optimizing sparse-view 3d gaussian radiance fields with global-local depth normalization,

    Jiahe Li, Jiawei Zhang, Xiao Bai, Jin Zheng, Xin Ning, Jun Zhou, and Lin Gu, “Dngaussian: Optimizing sparse-view 3d gaussian radiance fields with global-local depth normalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp....

    2024

  12. [20]

    Gaussianpro: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive propagation,

    Kai Cheng, Xiaoxiao Long, Kaizhi Yang, Yao Yao, Wei Yin, Yuexin Ma, Wenping Wang, and Xuejin Chen, “Gaussianpro: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive propagation,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Pixel-gs: Density control with pixel-aware gradient for 3d gaussian splatting,

    Zheng Zhang, Wenbo Hu, Yixing Lao, Tong He, and Hengshuang Zhao, “Pixel-gs: Density control with pixel-aware gradient for 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15530 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fregs: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive frequency regularization,

    Jiahui Zhang, Fangneng Zhan, Muyu Xu, Shijian Lu, and Eric Xing, “Fregs: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive frequency regularization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 21424–21433

    2024

  15. [23]

    Neusg: Neural implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guidance,

    Hanlin Chen, Chen Li, and Gim Hee Lee, “Neusg: Neural implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guidance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00846, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering,

    Antoine Gu ´edon and Vincent Lepetit, “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 , 2024, pp. 5354–5363

    2024

  17. [25]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields,

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao, “2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , 2024, pp. 1–11

    2024

  18. [26]

    Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters,

    Zirui Wang, Shangzhe Wu, Weidi Xie, Min Chen, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu, “Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07064 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Nope-nerf: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior,

    Wenjing Bian, Zirui Wang, Kejie Li, Jia-Wang Bian, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu, “Nope-nerf: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 4160–4169

    2023

  20. [28]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun, “Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Common objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruc- tion,

    Jeremy Reizenstein, Roman Shapovalov, Philipp Henzler, Luca Sbor- done, Patrick Labatut, and David Novotny, “Common objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruc- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on compute...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Least-squares estimation of transformation parame- ters between two point patterns,

    Shinji Umeyama, “Least-squares estimation of transformation parame- ters between two point patterns,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence , vol. 13, no. 04, pp. 376–380, 1991

    1991

  23. [31]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 586–595

    2018

  25. [33]

    A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual (-inertial) odometry,

    Zichao Zhang and Davide Scaramuzza, “A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual (-inertial) odometry,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 7244–7251

    2018

  26. [34]

    Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r,

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J ´erˆome Revaud, “Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09756 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.