Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Reliability-Aware Monocular Depth Supervision for Sparse-View Neural Reconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Monocular depth helps sparse outdoor reconstruction only when applied selectively on photometrically reliable pixels, and mainly for explicit Gaussian scenes rather than implicit NeRF-style fields.

desk verdict Useful empirical contrast: masked DA-V2 helps Splatfacto a lot on sparse KITTI and barely helps Mip-NeRF-360; the reliability story is only half-proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02554 v1 pith:DVHRDBFS submitted 2026-06-27 cs.CV cs.GR

Wei-Teng Chu , Yashasvini Gopalan , Changju Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords sparse-viewreconstructionmonoculardepthsupervision3DGaussianSplattingNeuralRadianceFieldsphotometricreliabilitymaskoutdoordrivingscenesAnythingV2
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

Sparse outdoor driving scenes leave neural reconstruction under-constrained because cameras mostly move forward and share little multi-view overlap. This paper shows that dense monocular depth can fill that gap if it is first aligned to metric scale and then applied only where an RGB-only baseline already reconstructs the image well. On an explicit Gaussian representation, that reliability-masked depth supervision raises novel-view PSNR by about one decibel and sharply cuts depth error; the same recipe barely helps, and can hurt, an implicit NeRF-style model. Matched-ratio ablations show the gain comes from choosing low-photometric-error regions, not merely from supervising fewer pixels. When multi-view coverage is already strong, the same prior can improve geometry while degrading RGB quality, so monocular depth is most useful under sparse, under-constrained conditions and with moderate weight.

What carries the argument

The photometric reliability mask: after training an RGB-only baseline, per-pixel photometric error is thresholded so the monocular depth loss is applied only on low-error (and depth-valid) pixels, while the RGB loss remains full-image.

What would settle it

On the same KITTI every-2 Splatfacto setup, if a high-error or random mask with the same number of supervised pixels matched or beat the low-error mask on PSNR and RMSE, the claim that reliability selection—not merely fewer pixels—drives the gain would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Reliability-masked monocular depth supervision—scale-shift-aligned Depth Anything V2 gated by photometric masks from an RGB-only baseline—improves sparse-view outdoor reconstruction for Splatfacto (PSNR from 14.903 to 15.932 and RMSE from 0.542 to 0.100 on KITTISeq02 every-2) while giving only marginal rendering gains and no metric-geometry improvement for Mip-NeRF-360. Matched-ratio ablations and a second KITTI fragment indicate that Splatfacto’s gains come from selecting low-error regions rather than simply reducing the number of depth-supervised pixels, and that the prior is most useful when multi-view coverage is weak.

Load-bearing premise

Low photometric error from an RGB-only model is taken as a stand-in for where monocular depth is safe to trust, without a separate check that those regions are actually accurate in depth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Explicit Gaussian methods can use monocular depth more effectively than implicit density fields under sparse forward-facing views.
  • Uniform monocular depth supervision is weaker than low-error photometric masking at matched pixel counts for Splatfacto.
  • A moderate depth-loss weight can improve both rendering and geometry; stronger weight often trades RGB fidelity for lower depth error.
  • When multi-view coverage is already strong, monocular depth can improve geometry metrics while hurting novel-view RGB quality.
  • Reliability-aware selection should be preferred over global monocular depth priors in under-constrained outdoor sparse-view settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Photometric error is a cheap proxy for depth trustworthiness; predicted monocular-depth confidence maps could refine the mask further without a second full RGB train.
  • The strong backbone dependence suggests sparse-view systems may need representation-specific depth-regularization schedules rather than one shared recipe.
  • Pipelines that already train an RGB baseline can add a fixed photometric mask at little extra cost before a depth-supervised retrain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies selective monocular depth supervision for sparse-view outdoor neural reconstruction. Depth Anything V2 predictions are scale-shift aligned to metric anchors, then applied only on pixels with low photometric reconstruction error from an RGB-only baseline (fixed mask M_τ). The same pipeline is evaluated on Mip-NeRF-360 and Splatfacto. On KITTISeq02 (every-2 sparse views), masked supervision yields only marginal PSNR gains and worse geometry for Mip-NeRF-360, while Splatfacto improves from 14.903 to 15.932 PSNR and 0.542 to 0.100 RMSE. Matched-ratio ablations (low-error vs high-error vs random) and a KITTISeq05 check support that the Splatfacto gains come from the low-error selection rather than merely fewer supervised pixels. On the object-centric Bicycle scene, depth supervision improves RMSE but can hurt RGB metrics when multi-view coverage is already strong. The authors conclude that monocular depth priors help under-constrained sparse views when applied selectively and with moderate weight.

Significance. If the empirical pattern holds, the work is a useful, practice-oriented contribution for sparse outdoor reconstruction with explicit Gaussian representations: it shows when monocular depth helps, when it hurts, and that a simple photometric mask can outperform global depth loss. Strengths include dual-backbone comparison, matched-ratio mask ablations (Table 4), a second KITTI sequence, and an explicit multi-view-rich contrast (Bicycle) that reveals a geometry–appearance tradeoff. The honesty about weak/negative Mip-NeRF-360 results is valuable. Novelty is incremental relative to prior depth-supervised NeRF/3DGS work; the main addition is the photometric reliability mask plus a careful side-by-side study rather than a new representation or depth model. Significance is therefore moderate and primarily empirical/practical rather than conceptual.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eqs. (3)–(4); Table 4; abstract] §4.3, Eqs. (3)–(4) and the central interpretation in the abstract/§5.4: the paper frames low photometric error e(u) as identifying regions where monocular depth is “reliable,” and attributes Table 4 gains to “selecting reliable low-error regions.” The matched-ratio ablation shows that the low-e mask is a better supervision set than high-e or random masks of equal cardinality, but it does not show that DA-V2 error vs LiDAR is lower in those regions. Without a direct correlation (or stratified error) between e(u) and monocular-vs-LiDAR residual on valid depth pixels, the “reliability-aware” causal story remains an assumption. Please either (i) report that correlation / binned monocular depth error under the same masks, or (ii) reframe claims more carefully as photometric-error-guided selective supervision without asserting monocular-depth trustworthiness.
  2. [§3 Experimental Scope; §5.1–5.4] §3 and §5: evaluation scope is thin for the outdoor-driving conclusions. Main results rest on one KITTISeq02 fragment (034), with only representative settings on KITTISeq05 and one Bicycle scene. Free parameters τ and λ_depth are swept, but there are essentially no multi-run error bars (except random masks) and no broader sequence coverage (e.g., 00/06 mentioned in protocol but unused). The Splatfacto gains are large and consistent across the two fragments, so the core finding is plausible, but claims about sparse forward-facing outdoor reconstruction need either more sequences/fragments or clearer scope limits in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [§5.3–5.4, §5.6; Tables 1–2] §5.3–5.4 and §5.6: the backbone contrast (Mip-NeRF-360 weak/negative vs Splatfacto strong) is a main contribution, but the mechanistic account—that explicit Gaussians absorb depth more cleanly while implicit density is sensitive to noisy priors—is post-hoc. Geometry metrics for Mip-NeRF-360 worsen under depth loss (Table 1 AbsRel/RMSE; Table 2), which is important, yet there is little analysis of rendered-depth bias, scale residual after alignment (§5.2 reports 4.22 m average absolute alignment error), or whether λ schedules / soft masks would change the NeRF outcome. A short diagnostic (e.g., depth residual maps, effect of alignment error, or soft vs hard masks) would make the representation-dependent claim load-bearing rather than speculative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables 1, 3] Tables 1 and 3 are “compact summaries” of larger sweeps. For reproducibility, include full grids (or appendix tables) with all (τ, λ) pairs and, for Splatfacto, state how the RGB-only mean is aggregated across runs.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2: report AbsRel as well as absolute error for aligned DA-V2, and clarify whether the 4.22 m figure is mean absolute error over all valid LiDAR pixels across the sequence.
  3. [§5.1, Tables 1–5] Splatfacto geometry is reported primarily as RMSE while Mip-NeRF-360 uses AbsRel and RMSE; align metric sets where possible so backbone comparisons are direct.
  4. [Figs. 3–6] Figure captions (Figs. 3–6) describe qualitative improvements (street pole, fewer floaters); ensure the main text points to specific failure modes of RGB-only vs masked depth with callouts, not only grid overviews.
  5. [Eq. (6)] Notation: L_depth uses N without defining whether it is |M_eff| or full image size; state the normalization explicitly in Eq. (6).
  6. [§2] Related work cites concurrent/arXiv depth-for-3DGS papers; briefly distinguish the photometric mask from inconsistency/uncertainty masks in those works so the incremental contribution is crisp.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; empirical method paper whose claims are measured on held-out novel views and LiDAR depth, not forced by construction from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a standard empirical CV methods study. Scale-shift alignment (Eq. 1–2) is a per-image least-squares fit of DA-V2 relative depth to sparse metric anchors (LiDAR/COLMAP); the resulting dense prior is then used only as a training regularizer, while reported metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS on held-out every-10th frames, AbsRel/RMSE vs. KITTI LiDAR) are independent of that fit. Photometric reliability masks (Eq. 3–5) are generated once from an RGB-only baseline and held fixed; they gate the depth loss but do not define the evaluation quantities. Matched-ratio ablations (Table 4) and cross-sequence/backbone comparisons are ordinary controlled experiments, not tautologies. There are no self-citations that load-bear uniqueness claims, no ansatz smuggled via author-overlapping prior work, and no renaming of known results. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; any weakness lies in the unvalidated proxy assumption (photometric error as depth reliability), which is a correctness/assumption issue outside the circularity criteria.

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

Empirical CV paper whose claims rest on standard neural rendering losses, a pretrained monocular depth model, and hand-chosen mask/weight hyperparameters. No new physical entities; free parameters are the usual training knobs that control the reported gains.

free parameters (3)
  • photometric mask threshold τ = best Splatfacto τ=0.18
    Binary reliability gate e(u)<τ; swept over {0.14…0.22,1.0} and best values selected on the evaluation sequences.
  • depth loss weight λ_depth = best rendering λ=0.10
    Relative strength of masked depth term; swept {0,0.05,0.10,0.15}; reported gains depend on moderate values.
  • per-image scale s* and shift t* = per-image least-squares
    Least-squares fit of DA-V2 relative depth to LiDAR/COLMAP anchors (Eq. 1); required for metric supervision.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Photometric error of an RGB-only baseline is a useful proxy for monocular-depth reliability
    Core design choice of Sec. 4.3; not independently validated against depth uncertainty maps.
  • domain assumption Scale-shift alignment of DA-V2 to sparse metric anchors yields a usable dense prior
    Standard practice; average alignment error reported as 4.22 m on KITTI.
  • domain assumption Volume rendering / Gaussian rasterization losses remain valid under sparse forward-facing views
    Inherited from Mip-NeRF-360 and Splatfacto literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reliability-Aware Monocular Depth Supervision for Sparse-View Neural Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVHRDBFS

@misc{pith2026260702554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reliability-Aware Monocular Depth Supervision for Sparse-View Neural Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVHRDBFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02554}
}
read the original abstract

Sparse-view neural reconstruction is challenging in outdoor driving scenes, where cameras usually move along a narrow forward-facing trajectory and provide limited multi-view overlap. Although monocular depth estimators can provide dense geometric priors, their predictions are noisy, and not uniformly reliable across image regions. In this work, we study monocular depth supervision for sparse-view neural reconstruction. We use Depth Anything V2 as a dense monocular depth prior, align its predictions to metric depth using scale-shift fitting, and apply depth supervision selectively through photometric masks generated from an RGB-only baseline model. We evaluate this strategy on two representative scene representations: Mip-NeRF-360 and Splatfacto. On KITTISeq02 under an every2 sparse-view setting, masked monocular depth supervision gives only marginal rendering gains for Mip-NeRF-360 and does not improve metric geometry. In contrast, Splatfacto benefits more clearly, improving PSNR from 14.903 to 15.932 and reducing RMSE from 0.542 to 0.100. Additional KITTISeq05 experiments and matched-ratio mask ablations further show that the gains for Splatfacto come from selecting reliable low-error regions rather than simply reducing the number of depth-supervised pixels. Additional experiments on the Bicycle scene show that depth supervision can improve geometry while hurting RGB rendering quality when multi-view coverage is already strong. Overall, our results suggest that monocular depth priors are useful for under-constrained sparse-view reconstruction, but should be applied selectively and with moderate weighting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02554 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outline of our reliability-aware monocular depth su [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Training views are subsampled from the KITTI Odom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablation on depth loss weight λ and photometric reliability threshold τ shows effect on Mip-NeRF-360 reconstruction of finer details such as the street pole. τ=0.14 τ=0.16 τ=0.18 τ=0.20 τ=0.22 global λ=0.05 λ=0.10 λ=0.15 λ = 0 (no depth prior) Ground Truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation on depth loss weight λ and photometric reliability threshold τ in Splatfacto. Compared to the RGB-only baseline (λ = 0), depth supervision improves geometric consistency and the reconstruction of thin structures, such as the street pole. The depth￾supervised m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PSNR as a function of depth loss weight λ on KITTI Seq02, evaluated across six threshold values τ ∈ {0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.20, 0.22, 1.0}. pixels rather than simply reducing the number of depth￾supervised pixels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation of depth loss weight λ and photometric reliability threshold τ for object-centric Splatfacto reconstruction. In the object￾centric Bicycle scene, depth supervision improves depth RMSE but generally reduces RGB rendering quality, as seen on the texture of the r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5470–5479, 2022. 2, 5, 7, 8

    2022

  2. [2]

    Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Reiner Birkl, Diana Wofk, Peter Wonka, and Matthias M”uller. Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [3]

    pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction

    David Charatan, Sizhe Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Vincent Sitzmann. pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2

    2024

  4. [4]

    Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images

    Yuedong Chen, Haofei Xu, Chuanxia Zheng, Bohan Zhuang, Marc Pollefeys, Andreas Geiger, Tat-Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [5]

    Depth-regularized optimization for 3d gaussian splatting in few-shot images

    Jaeyoung Chung, Jeongtaek Oh, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Depth-regularized optimization for 3d gaussian splatting in few-shot images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Work- shops (CVPRW), pages 811–820, 2024. 2

    2024

  6. [6]

    Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02791, 2024

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02791, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset.The in- ternational journal of robotics research, 32(11):1231–1237,

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset.The in- ternational journal of robotics research, 32(11):1231–1237,

  8. [8]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Trans

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, George Drettakis, et al. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1,

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Dngaussian: Optimizing sparse-view 3d gaussian radiance fields with global-local depth normaliza- tion

    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 normaliza- tion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pa...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis.Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021

    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.Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  3. [11]

    Splatfacto.https : / / docs

    Nerfstudio. Splatfacto.https : / / docs . nerf . studio/nerfology/methods/splat.html, 2023. Accessed: 2026-05-05. 4

    2023

  4. [12]

    Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation

    Luigi Piccinelli, Yung-Hsu Yang, Christos Sakaridis, Mattia Segu, Siyuan Li, Luc Van Gool, and Fisher Yu. Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Katrin Lasinger, David Hafner, Konrad Schindler, and Vladlen Koltun. Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(3):1623–1637, 2020. 2

    2020

  6. [14]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P

    Barbara Roessle, Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Matthias Nießner. Dense depth pri- ors for neural radiance fields from sparse input views.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03288, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development

    Matthew Tancik, Ethan Weber, Evonne Ng, Ruilong Li, Brent Yi, Terrance Wang, Alexander Kristoffersen, Jake Austin, Kamyar Salahi, Abhik Ahuja, et al. Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 conference proceedings, pages 1– 12,...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dn-splatter: Depth and normal priors for gaussian splatting and meshing

    Matias Turkulainen, Xuqian Ren, Iaroslav Melekhov, Otto Seiskari, Esa Rahtu, and Juho Kannala. Dn-splatter: Depth and normal priors for gaussian splatting and meshing. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 2421–243...

    2025

  9. [17]

    Dig- ging into depth priors for outdoor neural radiance fields

    Chen Wang, Jiadai Sun, Lina Liu, Chenming Wu, Zhelun Shen, Dayan Wu, Yuchao Dai, and Liangjun Zhang. Dig- ging into depth priors for outdoor neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 1221–1230, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  10. [18]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 5

    2004

  11. [19]

    In depth we trust: Reliable monocular depth supervision for gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05715, 2026

    Wenhui Xiao, Ethan Goan, Rodrigo Santa Cruz, David Ahmedt-Aristizabal, Olivier Salvado, Clinton Fookes, and Leo Lebrat. In depth we trust: Reliable monocular depth supervision for gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05715, 2026. 2, 4

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sparsegs: Real- time 360° sparse view synthesis using gaussian splatting

    Haolin Xiong, Sairisheek Muttukuru, Rishi Upadhyay, Pradyumna Chari, and Achuta Kadambi. Sparsegs: Real- time 360° sparse view synthesis using gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00206, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Depthsplat: Connecting gaussian splatting and depth

    Haofei Xu, Songyou Peng, Fangjinhua Wang, Hermann Blum, Daniel Barath, Andreas Geiger, and Marc Pollefeys. Depthsplat: Connecting gaussian splatting and depth. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025. 2

    2025

  14. [22]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Depth any- thing v2

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Zhen Zhao, Xiao- gang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth any- thing v2. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems (NeurIPS), 2024. 2, 5

    2024

  16. [24]

    Metric3d: 9 Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image

    Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Hao Chen, Zhipeng Cai, Gang Yu, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Chunhua Shen. Metric3d: 9 Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 2

    2023

  17. [25]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 5 10

    2018

Pith tools

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