Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

FlashSLAM: Accelerated RGB-D SLAM for Real-Time 3D Scene Reconstruction with Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FlashSLAM claims RGB-D camera tracking in under 80 ms by replacing gradient-descent pose optimization with feature matching and point-cloud registration.

desk verdict Solid engineering combination with strong sparse-view results, but the 80 ms headline describes only the SVD initializer, not the full tracker. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00682 v1 pith:CHWB7BL2 submitted 2024-12-01 cs.CV

Phu Pham , Damon Conover , Aniket Bera This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords RGB-DSLAM3DGaussianSplattingcameratrackingfeaturematchingpointcloudregistrationreal-timescenereconstructiondepthsensornoisesparseview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a simultaneous localization and mapping system can keep a 3D Gaussian Splatting map while tracking the camera by matching visual features between consecutive frames and aligning the matched 3D points, rather than by repeatedly rendering and optimizing. If true, pose estimation no longer slows down as the scene grows, and tracking remains accurate when frames are far apart or captured sparsely. The authors report tracking in under 80 ms, about 90% faster than one leading 3DGS SLAM baseline, and up to 92% better average tracking accuracy in sparse settings. They also claim that truncating depth at the 70th percentile of each frame's depth distribution makes the system usable with noisy consumer depth sensors such as smartphone cameras.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage tracking head: SuperPoint detects keypoints and LightGlue matches them between consecutive frames; the matched 2D points are back-projected to 3D using depth and camera intrinsics; and the rotation and translation are recovered in closed form via SVD of the cross-covariance matrix, with the translation computed from the centroids. Before registration, a dynamic depth truncation keeps only depths below the 70th percentile to suppress sensor noise. A short gradient-based refinement, up to 50 iterations, then aligns the pose against the rendered Gaussian map, and during mapping an ICP alignment corrects newly added points against visible Gaussians. The color-refinement pass uses loss-weighted keyframe sampling, so frames with higher photometric or depth loss are optimized more often.

What would settle it

On a textureless indoor scene, or one with intentionally corrupted depth, measure the absolute trajectory error against the provided camera path: if tracking error rises to the level of the gradient-based baselines rather than staying below them, the claimed advantage of feature-matching-plus-registration tracking is not general. The paper's own Office 4 result, an ATE of 2.18 cm attributed to lack of texture, is the first such data point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FlashSLAM's central claim is that camera pose in a 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM system can be estimated by matching features between consecutive RGB frames and solving a closed-form least-squares rigid transformation on the back-projected 3D points, instead of by gradient-descent rendering. The authors report that this tracking step runs in under 80 ms, about 90% faster than SplaTAM, and that in sparse settings where many frames are skipped it improves average tracking accuracy by up to 92% over prior 3DGS SLAM methods. They also claim that truncating depth at the 70th percentile of each frame's depth distribution makes the pose estimate robust to noisy consumer depth sensors, and that the resulting poses feed a 3DGS map updated with an ICP-based correction step and refined through photometric and depth losses. Evaluations on Replica, TUM RGB-D, ScanNet, ScanNet++, and an iPhone-captured dataset are offered as evidence that the method tracks accurately in both dense and sparse settings and reconstructs higher-fidelity scenes than the compared baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands on the feature matcher returning enough correct correspondences and on the depth values at those keypoints being accurate after truncation; the paper itself notes that non-textured images or excessive depth noise break the approach.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tracking no longer requires rendering every frame, so pose estimation cost stays roughly constant as the Gaussian map grows.
  • Sparse capture, with frames skipped by strides of 10, 20, or 40, remains trackable, as shown on Replica and TUM RGB-D.
  • Consumer depth sensors with noisy or limited-range depth can still support reconstruction, because truncated depth prevents bad points from dominating the pose solve.
  • Rendering quality improves along with tracking: on Replica the average PSNR is 39.21 dB with lower LPIPS than the compared 3DGS and NeRF-based SLAM baselines.
  • The reported 899 FPS on the Replica evaluation indicates the tracking head is cheap enough for real-time use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: because the tracking head is decoupled from the 3DGS optimization, it could likely be grafted onto monocular 3DGS SLAM if depth is supplied by a learned estimator, carrying the sparse-view benefit to RGB-only input.
  • Extension: the fixed 70th-percentile depth truncation could be replaced by a per-sensor noise model or learned confidence; the paper gives no evidence that 70 is optimal across sensors.
  • Extension: the failure mode on textureless frames, visible in the Office 4 result, suggests that inertial or geometric cues would be needed before the method can be trusted in untextured corridors; this is a testable next step, not a claim in the paper.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FlashSLAM, an RGB-D SLAM system built on 3D Gaussian Splatting, in which camera pose is initialized by matching consecutive RGB frames with SuperPoint and LightGlue, back-projecting the matches with depth, and solving a least-squares rigid transform via SVD (Eqs. 3-6). This initial pose is then refined by gradient-based optimization against the rendered Gaussian scene, with dynamically truncated depth used to reduce sensor noise. A keyframe-selection scheme, ICP-based alignment of new Gaussians, and a loss-weighted priority sampling color-refinement step complete the system. The authors report strong rendering quality and tracking accuracy on Replica and TUM RGB-D, particularly in sparse frame settings, and claim under-80 ms tracking, a 90% tracking-time reduction over SplaTAM, and up to a 92% improvement in sparse-setting tracking accuracy. The evaluation also includes ScanNet, ScanNet++, and a self-captured iPhone depth dataset.

Significance. If the reported speed and sparse-setting accuracy are substantiated, FlashSLAM would be a practically valuable engineering contribution: it combines standard components (SuperPoint, LightGlue, SVD, ICP, 3DGS) in a way that could yield robust tracking where optimization-only 3DGS SLAM systems drift, and the self-captured iPhone evaluation addresses an important real-world sensor modality. The paper makes a clear, falsifiable claim about a 80 ms tracking component and reports extensive comparisons, including reproducible baseline runs for MonoGS and SplaTAM on sparse inputs. However, the central speed claim is currently not supported by the paper's own tables, and several accuracy claims lack the error bars, scenario definitions, or ground-truth descriptions needed to assess them with confidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §5, Table 6; Supplementary Tables 10-11] The abstract's claim of "pose estimation in under 80 ms" is contradicted by Table 6 and the supplementary tracking-time tables. Table 6 shows that the pose-refinement setting used for the main results (50 iterations, ATE 0.55 cm, PSNR 39.21 dB) takes 485 ms per frame, while the 78 ms figure corresponds to the unrefined SVD stage. Supplementary Tables 10 and 11 report average tracking times of 0.48 s on Replica and 0.50 s on TUM, matching the 50-iteration cost, not the 78 ms no-refinement cost. The paper must either report the 80 ms number strictly as the initialization-stage cost, or state explicitly which refinement setting was used for each reported accuracy result; otherwise the headline speed/accuracy trade-off, including the "90% reduction" relative to SplaTAM, is not supported as stated. The 90% figure is also only attained for one TUM scene (Table 11, fr3/office), not on average.
  2. [Tables 4 and 5; §4.2 "Tracking in sparse setting"] The sparse-setting results that support the "up to 92% improvement" claim are reported without error bars, without a definition of which pose-refinement configuration was used, and without a precise description of how the baseline runs were configured beyond "running their publicly released code." Sparse tracking can be highly sensitive to the specific frames selected by the stride and to initialization, so three-state single runs are not enough to support a percentage-improvement claim. Please report the number of runs, standard deviations, the exact stride/keyframe sampling protocol, and whether the 78 ms or 485 ms tracking mode was active in Tables 4 and 5.
  3. [Supplementary §12, Table 13] The self-captured iPhone dataset is described as 296 individually captured images, but no ground-truth camera poses are described, and the paper does not say how the ATE (19.59 cm in Table 13) was computed. Without a ground-truth trajectory or an external alignment protocol, the reported ATE for this dataset is not interpretable, and the qualitative claim that "our method successfully tracks the camera poses" cannot be verified quantitatively. Please specify the ground-truth acquisition method (e.g., ARKit poses, manual alignment, or structure-from-motion) and the alignment procedure used for ATE.
  4. [§3.2, depth truncation; §3.3, ICP thresholds] Two components that the paper credits for robustness and accuracy are introduced with hand-set parameters that are not ablated: the "70th percentile of the depth distribution" truncation threshold in §3.2 and the ICP acceptance thresholds (fitness > 0.2, error < 0.1) and downsampling parameters in §3.3. Since the paper emphasizes robustness to depth noise and to smartphone sensors, a brief sensitivity study of the truncation percentile would significantly strengthen the claim that the method is robust rather than tuned to a specific value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] The text refers to "Splatam" in the comparison to prior Gaussian-based methods; use the consistent spelling "SplaTAM" throughout.
  2. [Table 3 caption] There is a typo in the Table 3 caption: "perfrmance" should be "performance."
  3. [§3.3, keyframe selection] The dense keyframe-selection rule is described as adding a frame "if it overlaps with the previous keyframe and falls below a specified threshold," but the threshold and the IoU computation details are not given. Please report the actual threshold used in the experiments.
  4. [§10, implementation details] Section 10 states that "the tracking process involves 30-70 steps" and "the mapping process requires 100-150 steps," which is ambiguous about whether "steps" refers to iterations of the optimizer or to keyframe updates. This should be aligned with the iteration counts reported in Table 6.
  5. [Table 1 and §4.2] The FPS value of 899 in Table 1 is presented as a general efficiency claim, but it is a rendering throughput number and does not include tracking or mapping cost. The paper should clarify that this is not the end-to-end SLAM frame rate.
  6. [Table 2 and §4.2] The Office 4 performance drop is attributed to lack of texture, but the ScanNet++ results in Table 9 show strong performance on a scene with large camera jumps. A sentence reconciling these observations (e.g., the role of depth texture vs. appearance texture) would help readers interpret when the method is expected to fail.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; FlashSLAM's tracking is an external-component pipeline (LightGlue + SuperPoint + SVD + ICP + 3DGS), and the reported speed claim, while arguably misleading, is not a circular derivation.

full rationale

FlashSLAM's tracked pose is computed from LightGlue/SuperPoint correspondences via the standard SVD least-squares solution (Eqs. 3–6), and the 3DGS map is optimized from that pose via photometric and depth losses (Eqs. 8–10). No equation in the paper defines the reported ATE or PSNR in terms of the pose-estimation inputs, nor are the metric values used as training targets to fit the tracker; the 70th-percentile depth truncation, p = 0.4 sampling probability, and ICP acceptance thresholds are fixed hyperparameters, not fitted quantities. The references to SplaTAM, MonoGS, GS-SLAM, LightGlue, and SuperPoint are external components or baselines, not load-bearing self-citations. The Office 4 tracking drop and the stated limitation on non-textured images or excessive depth noise show that the method can fail, which is inconsistent with a circularly forced result. The abstract's "under 80 ms" claim does describe only the no-refinement SVD stage (Table 6: 78 ms), whereas the full 50-iteration tracking used for the main results takes about 485 ms (Tables 10–11: 0.48 s); this is a reporting and support problem, but not a circular derivation, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the reliability of pretrained feature matching and depth quality, plus standard SVD alignment; no new physical entities are introduced, only hand-chosen engineering thresholds and hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • loss weight lambda = not specified in paper
    Balances photometric and depth losses in L = λLcolor + (1-λ)Ldepth; no value is reported in the text.
  • depth truncation percentile = 70th percentile
    Used to filter unreliable depth before SVD alignment; chosen by hand as a robustness heuristic.
  • priority sampling probability p = 0.4
    Probability of using loss-weighted sampling in color refinement; selected experimentally in Section 3.4.
  • ICP acceptance thresholds = fitness f>0.2, error e<0.1
    Thresholds for accepting ICP alignment before adding new Gaussians; chosen by hand in Section 3.3.
  • tracking refinement iterations = 50 (range 30-70)
    Number of gradient-based pose refinement iterations; chosen as a trade-off between ATE and time in Table 6.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LightGlue and SuperPoint produce reliable feature correspondences between consecutive frames, including under large camera motion.
    The entire tracking pipeline depends on these matches; the paper notes failure in low-texture images in the Limitations section.
  • domain assumption Depth values for matched keypoints are accurate enough after the 70th percentile truncation for SVD-based alignment.
    SVD point-cloud alignment uses back-projected depth; noise is mitigated by truncation but not independently validated.
  • standard math Standard rigid transformation estimation via SVD (Horn/Arun) yields a correct pose when correspondences are correct.
    Classic least-squares alignment used in Section 3.2, equations (3)-(6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FlashSLAM: Accelerated RGB-D SLAM for Real-Time 3D Scene Reconstruction with Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHWB7BL2

@misc{pith2026241200682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FlashSLAM: Accelerated RGB-D SLAM for Real-Time 3D Scene Reconstruction with Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHWB7BL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00682}
}
read the original abstract

We present FlashSLAM, a novel SLAM approach that leverages 3D Gaussian Splatting for efficient and robust 3D scene reconstruction. Existing 3DGS-based SLAM methods often fall short in sparse view settings and during large camera movements due to their reliance on gradient descent-based optimization, which is both slow and inaccurate. FlashSLAM addresses these limitations by combining 3DGS with a fast vision-based camera tracking technique, utilizing a pretrained feature matching model and point cloud registration for precise pose estimation in under 80 ms - a 90% reduction in tracking time compared to SplaTAM - without costly iterative rendering. In sparse settings, our method achieves up to a 92% improvement in average tracking accuracy over previous methods. Additionally, it accounts for noise in depth sensors, enhancing robustness when using unspecialized devices such as smartphones. Extensive experiments show that FlashSLAM performs reliably across both sparse and dense settings, in synthetic and real-world environments. Evaluations on benchmark datasets highlight its superior accuracy and efficiency, establishing FlashSLAM as a versatile and high-performance solution for SLAM, advancing the state-of-the-art in 3D reconstruction across diverse applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of FlashSLAM: Our approach takes RGB-D inputs to perform accurate 3D scene reconstruction. Initially, precise matches between consecutive frames are detected, which enables tracking of the camera pose through a rigid transformation. This pose is further refined using gradient-based optimization, leveraging Gaussian alignment to ensure accurate registration of new frames with the existing 3D model. The mappi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rendering comparison on Replica dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Novel view synthesis results for two scenes from the ScanNet++ dataset [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Novel view synthesis results with depth for scene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a failed reconstruction by SplaTAM [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rendering comparison on TUM fr1/desk. SplaTAM [11] MonoGS [15] Ours GT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rendering comparison on TUM fr1/xyz. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Rendering comparison on TUM fr1/office. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rendering comparison on a self-captured dataset captured with an iPhone camera. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.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. COLMAR: Cooperative View Policy Learning for Multi-Agent Active 3D Reconstruction

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A shared PPO policy with overlap-aware rewards improves multi-agent active 3D reconstruction coverage and accuracy in simulated indoor scenes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K. S. Arun, T. S. Huang, and S. D. Blostein. Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets. IEEE Transactions on Pat- 8 tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , PAMI-9(5):698– 700, 1987. 3

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    G ´omez Rodr´ıguez, Jos´e M

    Carlos Campos, Richard Elvira, Juan J. G ´omez Rodr´ıguez, Jos´e M. M. Montiel, and Juan D. Tard ´os. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 37(6): 1874–1890, 2021. 11, 12

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner

    Angela Dai, Angel X. Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In Proc. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, 2017. 11

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description

    Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabi- novich. Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 337–33712, 2017. 3

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Durrant-Whyte and T

    H. Durrant-Whyte and T. Bailey. Simultaneous localization and mapping: part i. IEEE Robotics & Automation Maga- zine, 13(2):99–110, 2006. 1

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Eggert, Adele Lorusso, and Robert B

    David W. Eggert, Adele Lorusso, and Robert B. Fisher. Esti- mating 3-d rigid body transformations: a comparison of four major algorithms. Machine Vision and Applications, 9:272– 290, 1997. 3

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Berthold K. P. Horn, Hugh M. Hilden, and Shahriar Negah- daripour. Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using orthonormal matrices. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A , 5(7):1127–1135,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Photo-slam: Real-time simultaneous localization and photo- realistic mapping for monocular stereo and rgb-d cameras

    Huajian Huang, Longwei Li, Hui Cheng, and Sai-Kit Yeung. Photo-slam: Real-time simultaneous localization and photo- realistic mapping for monocular stereo and rgb-d cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 21584–21593,

    work page

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Eslam: Efficient dense slam system based on hybrid representation of signed distance fields

    Mohammad Mahdi Johari, Camilla Carta, and Franc ¸ois Fleuret. Eslam: Efficient dense slam system based on hybrid representation of signed distance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17408–17419, 2023. 6

    2023

  2. [10]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Fourth Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing , page 61–70, Goslar, DEU, 2006. Eurographics Association. 2

    2006

  3. [11]

    Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaus- sians for dense rgb-d slam

    Nikhil Keetha, Jay Karhade, Krishna Murthy Jatavallab- hula, Gengshan Yang, Sebastian Scherer, Deva Ramanan, and Jonathon Luiten. Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaus- sians for dense rgb-d slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2024

  4. [12]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4), 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    LightGlue: Local Feature Matching at Light Speed

    Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, and Marc Polle- feys. LightGlue: Local Feature Matching at Light Speed. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [14]

    Lorensen and Harvey E

    William E. Lorensen and Harvey E. Cline. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques , page 163–169, New York, NY , USA, 1987. Association for Computing Machin- ery. 2

    1987

  7. [15]

    Kelly, and An- drew J

    Hidenobu Matsuki, Riku Murai, Paul H.J. Kelly, and An- drew J. Davison. Gaussian splatting slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18039–18048, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

    2024

  8. [16]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In ECCV, 2020. 2

    2020

  9. [17]

    Visual slam for automated driving: Exploring the applications of deep learning

    Stefan Milz, Georg Arbeiter, Christian Witt, Bassam Ab- dallah, and Senthil Yogamani. Visual slam for automated driving: Exploring the applications of deep learning. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , pages 360–36010,

    2018

  10. [18]

    Tard ´os

    Raul Mur-Artal and Juan D. Tard ´os. Orb-slam2: An open- source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cam- eras. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33:1255–1262, 2016. 7

    2016

  11. [19]

    Ra ´ul Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and Juan D. Tard´os. Orb- slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 31(5):1147–1163, 2015. 2

    2015

  12. [20]

    Newcombe, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, David Kim, Andrew J

    Richard A. Newcombe, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, David Kim, Andrew J. Davison, Push- meet Kohi, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, and Andrew Fitzgibbon. Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking. In 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixe...

    2011

  13. [21]

    Nerf- slam: Real-time dense monocular slam with neural radiance fields

    Antoni Rosinol, John J Leonard, and Luca Carlone. Nerf- slam: Real-time dense monocular slam with neural radiance fields. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 3437–3444. IEEE,

    2023

  14. [22]

    Os- wald

    Erik Sandstr ¨om, Yue Li, Luc Van Gool, and Martin R. Os- wald. Point-slam: Dense neural point cloud-based slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12

    2023

  15. [23]

    Julian Straub, Thomas Whelan, Lingni Ma, Yufan Chen, Erik Wijmans, Simon Green, Jakob J. Engel, Raul Mur-Artal, Carl Ren, Shobhit Verma, Anton Clarkson, Mingfei Yan, Brian Budge, Yajie Yan, Xiaqing Pan, June Yon, Yuyang Zou, Kimberly Leon, Nigel Carter, Jesus Briales, Tyler Gi...

    1906 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sturm, N

    J. Sturm, N. Engelhard, F. Endres, W. Burgard, and D. Cre- mers. A benchmark for the evaluation of rgb-d slam systems. In Proc. of the International Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS), 2012. 5, 7, 8, 13 9

    2012

  17. [25]

    iMAP: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time

    Edgar Sucar, Shikun Liu, Joseph Ortiz, and Andrew Davi- son. iMAP: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 1, 2, 6

    2021

  18. [26]

    Visual slam algorithms and their application for ar, mapping, localization and wayfinding.Ar- ray, 15:100222, 2022

    Charalambos Theodorou, Vladan Velisavljevic, Vladimir Dyo, and Fredi Nonyelu. Visual slam algorithms and their application for ar, mapping, localization and wayfinding.Ar- ray, 15:100222, 2022. 1

    2022

  19. [27]

    McLauchlan, Richard I

    Bill Triggs, Philip F. McLauchlan, Richard I. Hartley, and Andrew W. Fitzgibbon. Bundle adjustment - a modern syn- thesis. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice , page 298–372, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999. Springer-Verlag. 2

    1999

  20. [28]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 13(4): 600–612, 2004. 5

    2004

  21. [29]

    Salas- Moreno, Ben Glocker, and Andrew J

    Thomas Whelan, Stefan Leutenegger, Renato F. Salas- Moreno, Ben Glocker, and Andrew J. Davison. Elasticfu- sion: Dense slam without a pose graph. In Robotics: Science and Systems, 2015. 7

    2015

  22. [30]

    Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting

    Chi Yan, Delin Qu, Dan Xu, Bin Zhao, Zhigang Wang, Dong Wang, and Xuelong Li. Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 19595–19604, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2024

  23. [31]

    V ox-fusion: Dense tracking and mapping with voxel-based neural implicit representation

    Xingrui Yang, Hai Li, Hongjia Zhai, Yuhang Ming, Yuqian Liu, and Guofeng Zhang. V ox-fusion: Dense tracking and mapping with voxel-based neural implicit representation. 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug- mented Reality (ISMAR), pages 499–507, 2022. 6, 7, 11

    2022

  24. [32]

    Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes

    Chandan Yeshwanth, Yueh-Cheng Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 11, 12

    2023

  25. [33]

    Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 586–595, 2018. 5

    2018

  26. [34]

    Oswald, and Marc Polle- feys

    Zihan Zhu, Songyou Peng, Viktor Larsson, Weiwei Xu, Hu- jun Bao, Zhaopeng Cui, Martin R. Oswald, and Marc Polle- feys. Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 1, 2...

    2022

  27. [35]

    In Fig- ure 3, we present qualitative comparisons for scene IDs 8b5caf3398 (first three columns) and b20a261fdf (last three columns)

    Novel View Synthesis Figures 3 and 4 showcase the novel view synthesis re- sults on the ScanNet++ dataset [32], highlighting both RGB and depth outputs for two representative scenes. In Fig- ure 3, we present qualitative comparisons for scene IDs 8b5caf3398 (first three column...

  28. [36]

    360” or “full

    Additional Tracking Results A comparative evaluation of tracking performance for var- ious SLAM methods is provided on the ScanNet [3] and ScanNet++ [32] datasets, as shown in Tables 8 and 9. These tables highlight the accuracy and robustness of our approach in challenging sce...

  29. [37]

    Methods 0000 0059 0106 0169 0181 0207 Avg

    in both settings. Methods 0000 0059 0106 0169 0181 0207 Avg. V ox-Fusion [31] 68.84 24.188.41 27.28 23.30 9.41 26.90 NICE-SLAM [34]12.00 14.00 7.90 10.90 13.40 6.20 10.73 Point-SLAM [22]10.24 7.81 8.65 22.16 14.77 9.54 12.20 SplaTAM [11] 12.83 10.10 17.72 12.08 11.10 7.46 11.8...

  30. [38]

    Tracking Time Analysis The results in Tables 10, 11, and 12 highlight the effi- ciency and robustness of our method in reducing tracking time. On the Replica dataset (Table 10), our method re- duces the average tracking time by up to 56% compared to MonoGS [15] and maintains a...

  31. [39]

    12 Methods fr1/ fr1/ fr1/ fr2/ fr3/ Avg

    Further Implementation Details All experiments are conducted on an NVIDIA A100 80GB PCIe GPU to ensure quick and efficient experimentation. 12 Methods fr1/ fr1/ fr1/ fr2/ fr3/ Avg. desk desk2 room xyz office SplaTAM [11] 3.46 3.02 3.57 3.85 5.16 3.81 MonoGS [15] 0.89 0.93 0.89...

  32. [40]

    Each figure compares the out- puts of SplaTAM [11], MonoGS [15], and our method against the ground truth (GT)

    Rendering Comparisons The additional visual results presented in Figures 6, 7, and 8 illustrate the rendering quality of different methods on the TUM dataset, specifically on the fr1/desk, fr1/xyz, and fr1/office scenes. Each figure compares the out- puts of SplaTAM [11], Mono...

  33. [41]

    The images were captured individually rather than extracted from a video, making the dataset well-suited for sparse settings where the overlap between consecutive frames is limited

    Evaluation on Self-Captured Dataset We evaluate our method on a self-captured dataset consist- ing of 296 images taken with the depth camera of an iPhone 13 Pro Max. The images were captured individually rather than extracted from a video, making the dataset well-suited for sp...

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.