Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

SEGS-SLAM: Structure-enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM with Appearance Embedding

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 SEGS-SLAM claims that anchoring 3D Gaussians on the tracked map point cloud and conditioning appearance on camera pose yields state-of-the-art photorealistic mapping, reporting a 19.86% PSNR gain over MonoGS on TUM RGB-D monocular…

desk verdict Real rendering gains from anchoring Scaffold-GS on ORB-SLAM3 points, but the paper never isolates whether the anchor source matters; AfME is a clean small idea that deserves credit. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05242 v3 pith:FVCFNAM2 submitted 2025-01-09 cs.CV

Tianci Wen , Zhiang Liu , Yongchun Fang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingSLAMphotorealisticmappingstructure-enhancedappearanceembeddingfrequencypyramidregularizationnovelviewsynthesismonocularstereoRGB-D
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 argues that the quality of photorealistic maps built by 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM depends on preserving latent scene structure during optimization, and that this structure can be injected by initializing fixed anchor points from the sparse point cloud produced by a feature-based visual SLAM front-end. It claims that doing so, together with an appearance embedding conditioned on camera pose, yields renderings of novel views that are visibly sharper and more photometrically consistent than prior 3D-GS SLAM systems across monocular, stereo, and RGB-D inputs. On the TUM RGB-D dataset with monocular input, the method reports a 19.86% improvement in PSNR over MonoGS. A sympathetic reader would care because the claim identifies a simple and transferable design choice, anchoring Gaussians on tracked map points, as the main driver of rendering quality rather than a more complex scene model. The paper also claims that pose-conditioned appearance handles lighting changes without the test-set training that earlier appearance embeddings require.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anchor point set produced by SEPM: the ORB-SLAM3 point cloud is voxelized as $V_k = \{\lfloor P_k/\epsilon \rfloor\}\cdot \epsilon$, and each voxel center becomes a fixed anchor equipped with a context feature, a scale factor, and $k$ learnable offsets; MLPs decode the $k$ Gaussians per anchor. Anchors remain fixed throughout optimization, so the scene structure is imprinted once and retained. AfME is the second mechanism: a tiny MLP $M_{\theta_a}$ takes $(R,t)$ and outputs an appearance vector $\ell^{(a)}_{R,t}$ that is injected into the color decoder. FPR is the third: a multi-scale FFT-based high-pass loss that pushes new anchors into high-frequency regions, sharpening edges and fine texture.

What would settle it

Take a TUM RGB-D monocular sequence, fix poses and iteration count, and compare three variants: full SEGS-SLAM, the same system with anchor positions unfrozen, and the same system with anchors initialized from a point cloud pruned to half its points. If PSNR does not drop by roughly the ablated margin reported in the paper when anchors are unfrozen or the point cloud is pruned, the fixed-anchor structure hypothesis is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SEGS-SLAM is presented as the first SLAM system to initialize the anchor points of structured 3D Gaussians with the point cloud of ORB-SLAM3, voxelizing those points into fixed anchor positions that stay frozen during optimization. Because the anchors remain fixed, the latent structure of the scene is preserved while the Gaussians are refined; the paper claims this corrects structural degradation visible in prior methods and produces state-of-the-art novel-view PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS. A second claimed discovery is Appearance-from-Motion embedding (AfME): a small MLP maps the camera pose $(R,t)$ to an appearance embedding fed into the color decoder, so illumination and exposure are modeled as a continuous function of viewpoint and no test-set images are needed for training. A third, smaller component, frequency pyramid regularization (FPR), penalizes high-frequency differences between rendered and ground-truth images at multiple scales and guides anchor densification at edges.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the sparse point cloud produced by the tracking front-end is accurate and complete enough to serve as fixed anchors; the paper's own limitation section concedes that a poorly structured point cloud leads to a decline in photorealistic mapping quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rendering quality in 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM should improve whenever the tracking front-end produces a well-structured sparse point cloud, without needing a denser or more complex scene model.
  • Appearance variations such as exposure and lighting can be predicted for arbitrary novel viewpoints from camera pose alone, removing the need to train on any part of the test set.
  • High-frequency detail can be sharpened automatically by a frequency-domain loss that triggers anchor-point densification in the regions that need it.
  • The same feature-based tracking backbone can serve both localization and photorealistic mapping, with rendering running as a parallel thread, so the gains do not require abandoning established SLAM pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper does not develop: if fixed anchors are the true driver, rendering quality should track point-cloud density monotonically, so pruning the map by half should measurably reduce PSNR under the authors' own ablation protocol.
  • Because AfME maps pose to appearance, it implicitly assumes lighting is a function of viewpoint rather than time; in a scene with a moving light source or temporal flicker, pose conditioning would likely fail and a time-dependent input would be needed.
  • The headline 19.86% gain is computed against MonoGS in monocular mode, where baseline tracking can degrade; re-running all methods with identical frozen poses would separate the rendering contribution of SEPM and AfME from tracking differences.
  • If the fixed-anchor recipe transfers, it suggests a general design rule for neural SLAM: choose sparse geometric priors that stay frozen during photometric optimization, since movable anchors tend to drift into structural inconsistency.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. SEGS-SLAM proposes a 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM system with two main contributions: Structure-Enhanced Photorealistic Mapping (SEPM), which voxelizes ORB-SLAM3 point clouds into fixed anchor points to initialize structured 3D Gaussians, and Appearance-from-Motion embedding (AfME), which encodes camera pose into an appearance vector used by the color decoder, plus a Frequency Pyramid Regularization (FPR) loss. The system is evaluated on Replica, TUM RGB-D, and EuRoC MAV datasets for monocular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras, and reports substantial PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS improvements over baselines such as MonoGS, Photo-SLAM, and GS-ICP SLAM while maintaining competitive tracking accuracy. The supplementary material provides per-scene tables, additional ablations, and runtime comparisons.

Significance. If the rendering improvements are fully supported, this is a useful systems contribution to 3DGS-based SLAM: it demonstrates that anchoring Gaussians on a traditional SLAM point cloud and conditioning appearance on camera pose can yield large photorealistic-mapping gains. The evaluation is largely fair and unusually thorough: a held-out keyframe split is used, no masks are applied in RGB-D metric computation, baselines are run on the same machine by the authors using official code, and per-scene numbers are reported. The main weakness is that the central SEPM ablation conflates the anchor-based Scaffold-GS representation with the ORB-SLAM3 point-cloud prior, and the monocular scale issue is not addressed; until these are resolved, the specific contribution claims in Section 1 are not experimentally isolated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3, Table 4] The SEPM ablation does not isolate the effect of initializing anchors from the ORB-SLAM3 point cloud. Row (1) 'w/o FPR, AfME, SEPM' is the original 3D-GS, while row (2) 'w/o FPR, AfME' simultaneously introduces the anchor-based Scaffold-GS representation and the SEPM initialization from ORB-SLAM3 points. Any improvement from row (1) to row (2) could be due to switching to the structured anchor representation itself, not to the specific ORB-SLAM3 structural prior. To support the claim in Section 1 that 'SEPM is the first SLAM framework that initializes anchor points with ORB-SLAM3 point cloud,' an ablation is needed that keeps the Scaffold-GS backbone fixed and varies only the anchor initialization source (e.g., COLMAP point cloud, a random voxel grid, or Photo-SLAM's point cloud). Without this control, the mechanism behind the headline gains is not established.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (6); Section 11.2] The paper states that anchor points 'remain fixed during the optimization process,' but ORB-SLAM3 includes loop closure and global bundle adjustment (Section 11.2) that can update the map points and camera poses after anchors have been created. The manuscript does not describe any mechanism to re-voxelize or update anchors when the underlying map changes. In monocular sequences, global BA can significantly correct drift, so anchors created before a loop closure can encode stale or inconsistent geometry. The authors should either describe an anchor-update strategy or present evidence that stale anchors do not degrade rendering in sequences with loop closures.
  3. [Section 5.1] The voxel size epsilon is set to 0.001 m, which is a metric-scale quantity, but monocular ORB-SLAM3 produces maps with arbitrary scale (gauge freedom). The paper does not report any scale normalization or alignment of the monocular map to metric units before voxelization in Eq. (6). With a fixed epsilon, the anchor density in monocular runs will depend on the arbitrary map scale, yet the paper reports consistent improvements on monocular TUM and Replica datasets. The authors should clarify how the monocular map scale is handled, or explain why a fixed metric epsilon is scale-invariant.
  4. [Supplementary Material, Section 9, Table 7] The replacement of AfME with AE (Scaffold-GS's appearance embedding) shows a very large drop (e.g., TUM Mono PSNR from 25.17 to 19.33), but the standard appearance-embedding approach introduced in NeRF-W and used in Scaffold-GS normally requires additional training on test-set images to predict appearance for novel views. It is not described whether the AE baseline was granted this test-time adaptation. If it was not, the comparison is unfair and the AfME advantage in Table 7 may largely reflect that AE was not used as intended. Please describe the AE training protocol and, if possible, also report a comparison where AE is allowed its standard test-view training.
  5. [Section 5.1 (experimental protocol)] The paper states that 'average across five runs' is reported for all methods, but no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-run numbers are provided. This makes it difficult to assess whether the reported margins, especially the smaller ones (e.g., Replica RGB-D PSNR 39.42 vs. 37.14, or the AfME gains on Replica), are statistically significant. Please add variance information or error bars to the key tables, or at least report the standard deviations in the supplementary material.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] Typo: 'the the camera pose' should be 'the camera pose'.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (9)] The per-scale weight lambda_s in Eq. (9) is not specified in the main text or the supplementary material; please provide the values used (e.g., in Section 9 or in the experimental parameters).
  3. [Table 3] Typo: 'DRIOD-SLAM' should be 'DROID-SLAM'.
  4. [Table 3] The monocular TUM RGB-D average ATE for MonoGS is reported as 63.437 cm, which is inconsistent with the per-sequence values in Table 12 (Replica avg 37.054 cm and TUM avg 4.009 cm would average to about 20.5 cm, not 63.437 cm); please correct this entry.
  5. [Section 5.4] Acronym inconsistency: 'AFME' should be 'AfME'. Also, the second sentence 'While our method achieves real-time tracking and rendering at 17 and 400 FPS, respectively, it exhibits reduced rendering speed due to the increased number of 3D Gaussians' is worded confusingly; the FPS values should be attributed clearly to tracking and rendering respectively.
  6. [Section 11.2, Eq. (12)] Eq. (12) has a misplaced brace: the expression reads '{R_iota, t_iota} = sum_{iota in X} argmin ...', but the argmin should apply to the sum. Please fix the typesetting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core claims (SEPM, AfME, FPR) are evaluated on held-out novel views against external baselines, and no prediction is a renamed fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central contributions are SEPM (initializing anchor-based 3D Gaussians from ORB-SLAM3 point clouds), AfME (appearance embedding from camera pose), and FPR (frequency-pyramid regularization). The evaluation protocol explicitly trains only on keyframes and reports metrics on held-out novel views: 'We use the images and poses of keyframes as the training set, while the remaining images and poses serve as the test set.' AfME is a continuous function of camera pose trained on training views and applied to novel test poses; unlike NeRF-W's appearance embeddings, it does not train on test images, so the novel-view appearance prediction is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. SEPM's benefit is assessed by ablations and external benchmark comparisons, not by a derivation that assumes its own conclusion. The paper cites external prior work (Scaffold-GS, ORB-SLAM3, Photo-SLAM, MonoGS) rather than relying on load-bearing self-citations. One experimental caveat is that the ablation 'w/o FPR, AfME, SEPM' vs 'w/o FPR, AfME' changes both the anchor-based Scaffold-GS representation and the ORB-SLAM3 structural initialization together, so the isolated contribution of the ORB-SLAM3 prior is not fully disentangled. This is a confounding/attribution concern about the experiment, not a circularity: the reported numbers are still measured against held-out views and external baselines, and no equation or fitted quantity reduces to the claimed result by construction. The limitation statement that a poorly structured point cloud degrades quality is consistent with an empirical dependency, not a circular one. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity risks.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on several domain assumptions that are standard in the field but unproven here: the reliability of ORB-SLAM3's map, the validity of Scaffold-GS's anchor representation inside SLAM, and the pose-to-appearance determinism in static scenes. Free hyperparameters (voxel size, loss weights, growing threshold, AfME dimension) are hand-tuned per experiment; none is fit to test data in the protocol described. No new physical entities are introduced; AfME is a learned feature vector rather than an ontological commitment.

free parameters (6)
  • voxel size epsilon = 0.001 m
    Hand-selected anchor voxel size for point cloud voxelization in Eq. (6). Central to the number of anchors and hence rendering detail and speed.
  • FPR scale level S = 3
    Number of pyramid scales in Eq. (9), chosen by ablation (Table 5).
  • loss weights lambda, lambda_vol, lambda_hf = 0.2, 0.01, 0.01 (lambda_hf=0.025 for monocular Replica)
    Weights in Eq. (11), set by hand with per-dataset tuning for lambda_hf.
  • anchor growing threshold tau_g = 0.0002 (base)
    Threshold in Sec. 11.5 for adding anchors; inherited from Scaffold-GS [21].
  • AfME embedding dimension Na = 1 for monocular Replica, 32 otherwise
    Dimension of appearance embedding vector in Eq. (7), dataset-dependent choice.
  • number of Gaussians per anchor k = 10
    Per-anchor Gaussian count in Eq. (1), fixed across experiments.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ORB-SLAM3 point cloud is a sufficiently accurate and complete structure prior for anchor initialization.
    The SEPM gains (Table 4 rows 1 vs 2) depend on the quality of ORB-SLAM3's sparse map; the authors acknowledge in Sec. 5.4 that a poorly structured point cloud degrades mapping quality.
  • domain assumption Camera pose deterministically encodes appearance in static scenes.
    AfME assumes that appearance variations (exposure, lighting) are a function of pose (Eq. 7); the authors note AfME only handles static scenes and would need more complex inputs for dynamic scenes (Sec. 5.4).
  • domain assumption Structured 3D Gaussians (Scaffold-GS) is a valid representation for SLAM mapping.
    The method relies entirely on Scaffold-GS's anchor-based Gaussian rendering (Eqs. 1-3, Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption Held-out novel view metrics on keyframe-split datasets faithfully measure mapping quality.
    Evaluation trains on keyframe images and tests on the rest, following MonoGS [24] and Photo-SLAM [12]; fairness depends on this protocol being unbiased for all compared methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SEGS-SLAM: Structure-enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM with Appearance Embedding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVCFNAM2

@misc{pith2026250105242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SEGS-SLAM: Structure-enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM with Appearance Embedding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVCFNAM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05242}
}
abstract

3D Gaussian splatting (3D-GS) has recently revolutionized novel view synthesis in the simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) problem. However, most existing algorithms fail to fully capture the underlying structure, resulting in structural inconsistency. Additionally, they struggle with abrupt appearance variations, leading to inconsistent visual quality. To address these problems, we propose SEGS-SLAM, a structure-enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM, which achieves high-quality photorealistic mapping. Our main contributions are two-fold. First, we propose a structure-enhanced photorealistic mapping (SEPM) framework that, for the first time, leverages highly structured point cloud to initialize structured 3D Gaussians, leading to significant improvements in rendering quality. Second, we propose Appearance-from-Motion embedding (AfME), enabling 3D Gaussians to better model image appearance variations across different camera poses. Extensive experiments on monocular, stereo, and RGB-D datasets demonstrate that SEGS-SLAM significantly outperforms state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods in photorealistic mapping quality, e.g., an improvement of $19.86\%$ in PSNR over MonoGS on the TUM RGB-D dataset for monocular cameras. The project page is available at https://segs-slam.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method SEGS-SLAM outperforms SOTA methods (GS-ICP SLAM [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our method. Our method supports monocular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras. The input image stream is processed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of the Photo-SLAM’s 3D Gaussians and of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The visualization of AfME controlling appearance. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We show comparisons of ours to SOTA methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We show comparisons of ours to SOTA methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: , the AfME effectively predicts the lighting conditions of novel views. On the Replica dataset, the improvements from AfME are relatively modest. Replica is an easier dataset, in which PSNR already exceeds 37 without AfME, indicating that scene is well-reconstructed. A…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation of SEPM. The figure presents qualitative re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of anchor points after 30K iterations. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The entire pipeline for obtaining the Gaussian color is also detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Structure of the MLPs Mα, MC , Ms, and Mq. For each anchor, we use these MLPs to predict the opacity, color, scale, and quaternion of k 3D Gaussian. The inputs to the MLPs include the relative distance δvc and the viewing direction ⃗dvc between camera position tc and …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: We show comparisons of ours to state-of-the-art methods on TUM RGB-D dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: We show comparisons of ours to state-of-the-art methods on Replica dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: We show comparisons of ours to state-of-the-art methods on TUM RGB-D dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: We show comparisons of ours to state-of-the-art methods on Replica dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: We show comparisons of ours to state-of-the-art methods on the EuRoC MAV dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.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. Monocular Online Reconstruction with Enhanced Detail Preservation

    cs.GR 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A monocular online mapper seeds 3D Gaussians from tracker features and error regions, prunes them with multi-level occupancy hashing, and balances local and global optimization to exceed prior RGB-only and most RGB-D ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Michael Bloesch, Jan Czarnowski, Ronald Clark, Stefan Leutenegger, and Andrew J. Davison. Codeslam — learning a compact, optimisable representation for dense visual slam. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets

    Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Joern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achte- lik, and Roland Siegwart. The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35 (10):1157–1163, 2016. 1, 6

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    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. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Orbeez-slam: A real-time monocular visual slam with orb features and nerf-realized mapping

    Chi-Ming Chung, Yang-Che Tseng, Ya-Ching Hsu, Xiang- Qian Shi, et al. Orbeez-slam: A real-time monocular visual slam with orb features and nerf-realized mapping. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 9400–9406, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Plgslam: Progressive neural scene represenation with local to global bundle adjustment

    Tianchen Deng, Guole Shen, Tong Qin, Jianyu Wang, Wen- tao Zhao, Jingchuan Wang, Danwei Wang, and Weidong Chen. Plgslam: Progressive neural scene represenation with local to global bundle adjustment. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19657– 19666, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Lsd- slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam

    Jakob Engel, Thomas Sch ¨ops, and Daniel Cremers. Lsd- slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 834–849, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Direct sparse odometry

    Jakob Engel, Vladlen Koltun, and Daniel Cremers. Direct sparse odometry. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 40(3):611–625, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    evo: Python package for the evalua- tion of odometry and slam

    Michael Grupp. evo: Python package for the evalua- tion of odometry and slam. https://github.com/ MichaelGrupp/evo, 2017. 6

    work page 2017

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Rgbd gs-icp slam

    Seongbo Ha, Jiung Yeon, and Hyeonwoo Yu. Rgbd gs-icp slam. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 180–197, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    2024

  2. [10]

    Cp-slam: Collaborative neural point-based slam system

    Jiarui Hu, Mao Mao, Hujun Bao, Guofeng Zhang, and Zhaopeng Cui. Cp-slam: Collaborative neural point-based slam system. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 39429–39442, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [11]

    Cg-slam: Efficient dense rgb-d slam in a consistent uncertainty-aware 3d gaussian field

    Jiarui Hu, Xianhao Chen, Boyin Feng, Guanglin Li, Liangjing Yang, Hujun Bao, Guofeng Zhang, and Zhaopeng Cui. Cg-slam: Efficient dense rgb-d slam in a consistent uncertainty-aware 3d gaussian field. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 93–112, 2024. 1, 2, 6

    2024

  4. [12]

    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 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21584–21593, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4,...

    2024

  5. [13]

    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 IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17408–17419, 2023. 2

    2023

  6. [14]

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

    Nikhil Keetha, Jay Karhade, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Gengshan Yang, Sebastian Scherer, Deva Ramanan, and Jonathon Luiten. Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21357–21366, 20...

    2024

  7. [15]

    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):1–14, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7

    2023

  8. [16]

    Parallel tracking and map- ping for small ar workspaces

    Georg Klein and David Murray. Parallel tracking and map- ping for small ar workspaces. In 2007 6th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality , pages 225–234, 2007. 2

    2007

  9. [17]

    Sgs-slam: Se- mantic gaussian splatting for neural dense slam

    Mingrui Li, Shuhong Liu, Heng Zhou, Guohao Zhu, Na Cheng, Tianchen Deng, and Hongyu Wang. Sgs-slam: Se- mantic gaussian splatting for neural dense slam. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 163–179, 2025. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    2025

  10. [18]

    Multi-session slam with dif- ferentiable wide-baseline pose optimization

    Lahav Lipson and Jia Deng. Multi-session slam with dif- ferentiable wide-baseline pose optimization. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 19626–19635, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [19]

    Lorenzo Liso, Erik Sandstr ¨om, Vladimir Yugay, Luc Van Gool, and Martin R. Oswald. Loopy-slam: Dense neural slam with loop closures. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20363–20373,

  12. [20]

    Mix- ture of volumetric primitives for efficient neural rendering

    Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Gabriel Schwartz, Michael Zollhoefer, Yaser Sheikh, and Jason Saragih. Mix- ture of volumetric primitives for efficient neural rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 40(4), 2021. 5

    2021

  13. [21]

    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 IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20654–20664, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5, 1

    2024

  14. [22]

    Ngel-slam: Neural implicit representation-based global consistent low-latency slam system

    Yunxuan Mao, Xuan Yu, Zhuqing Zhang, Kai Wang, Yue Wang, Rong Xiong, and Yiyi Liao. Ngel-slam: Neural implicit representation-based global consistent low-latency slam system. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 6952–6958, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S. M. Saj- jadi, Jonathan T. Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duckworth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for unconstrained photo collections. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 721...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Kelly, and An- drew J

    Hidenobu Matsuki, Riku Murai, Paul H.J. Kelly, and An- drew J. Davison. Gaussian splatting slam. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18039–18048, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 4, 8, 9, 10

    2024

  17. [25]

    Goldman, Sameh Khamis, Hugues Hoppe, Rohit Pandey, Noah Snavely, and Ricardo Martin- Brualla

    Moustafa Meshry, Dan B. Goldman, Sameh Khamis, Hugues Hoppe, Rohit Pandey, Noah Snavely, and Ricardo Martin- Brualla. Neural rerendering in the wild. In IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019. 2

    2019

  18. [26]

    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 European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 405–421, 2020. 1

    2020

  19. [27]

    Rtg-slam: Real-time 3d re- construction at scale using gaussian splatting

    Zhexi Peng, Tianjia Shao, Yong Liu, Jingke Zhou, Yin Yang, Jingdong Wang, and Kun Zhou. Rtg-slam: Real-time 3d re- construction at scale using gaussian splatting. In ACM SIG- GRAPH, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    2024

  20. [28]

    Os- wald

    Erik Sandstr ¨om, Yue Li, Luc Van Gool, and Martin R. Os- wald. Point-slam: Dense neural point cloud-based slam. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 18433–18444, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  21. [29]

    Erik Sandstr ¨om, Kevin Ta, Luc Van Gool, and Martin R. Oswald. Uncle-slam: Uncertainty learning for dense neural slam. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pages 4537–4548, 2023. 2

    2023

  22. [30]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016. 2, 3

    2016

  23. [31]

    The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces

    Julian Straub, Thomas Whelan, Lingni Ma, Yufan Chen, Erik Wijmans, Simon Green, Jakob J Engel, et al. The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797, 2019. 6

    1906 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A benchmark for the evalua- tion of rgb-d slam systems

    J ¨urgen Sturm, Nikolas Engelhard, Felix Endres, Wolfram Burgard, and Daniel Cremers. A benchmark for the evalua- tion of rgb-d slam systems. In IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 573–580,

  25. [33]

    Nodeslam: Neural object descriptors for multi-view shape reconstruction

    Edgar Sucar, Kentaro Wada, and Andrew Davison. Nodeslam: Neural object descriptors for multi-view shape reconstruction. In 2020 International Conference on 3D Vi- sion, pages 949–958, 2020. 2

    2020

  26. [34]

    Davi- son

    Edgar Sucar, Shikun Liu, Joseph Ortiz, and Andrew J. Davi- son. imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6229–6238, 2021. 2, 6

    2021

  27. [35]

    Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 16558– 16569, 2021. 2, 5, 7

    2021

  28. [36]

    Deep patch vi- sual odometry

    Zachary Teed, Lahav Lipson, and Jia Deng. Deep patch vi- sual odometry. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, pages 39033–39051, 2023. 2

    2023

  29. [37]

    Co- slam: Joint coordinate and sparse parametric encodings for neural real-time slam

    Hengyi Wang, Jingwen Wang, and Lourdes Agapito. Co- slam: Joint coordinate and sparse parametric encodings for neural real-time slam. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 13293–13302,

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    Dg-slam: Robust dynamic gaussian splatting slam with hybrid pose optimization

    Yueming Xu, Haochen Jiang, Zhongyang Xiao, Jianfeng Feng, and Li Zhang. Dg-slam: Robust dynamic gaussian splatting slam with hybrid pose optimization. InIn Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    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 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19595–19604, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    2024

  33. [41]

    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. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug- mented Reality, pages 499–507, 2022. 2

    2022

  34. [42]

    Ibd-slam: Learning image-based depth fusion for generalizable slam

    Minghao Yin, Shangzhe Wu, and Kai Han. Ibd-slam: Learning image-based depth fusion for generalizable slam. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10563–10573, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    Gaussian-slam: Photo-realistic dense slam with gaus- sian splatting

    Vladimir Yugay, Yue Li, Theo Gevers, and Martin R Os- wald. Gaussian-slam: Photo-realistic dense slam with gaus- sian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10070, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Nis-slam: Neural implicit se- mantic rgb-d slam for 3d consistent scene understanding

    Hongjia Zhai, Gan Huang, Qirui Hu, Guanglin Li, Hujun Bao, and Guofeng Zhang. Nis-slam: Neural implicit se- mantic rgb-d slam for 3d consistent scene understanding. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, pages 1–11, 2024. 2

    2024

  37. [45]

    Fregs: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive fre- quency regularization

    Jiahui Zhang, Fangneng Zhan, Muyu Xu, Shijian Lu, and Eric Xing. Fregs: 3d gaussian splatting with progressive fre- quency regularization. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 21424–21433,

  38. [46]

    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 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018. 6

    2018

  39. [47]

    Hi-slam: Monocular real-time dense mapping with hybrid implicit fields

    Wei Zhang, Tiecheng Sun, Sen Wang, Qing Cheng, and Nor- bert Haala. Hi-slam: Monocular real-time dense mapping with hybrid implicit fields. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(2):1548–1555, 2024. 2

    2024

  40. [48]

    Go-slam: Global optimization for consistent 3d in- stant reconstruction

    Youmin Zhang, Fabio Tosi, Stefano Mattoccia, and Matteo Poggi. Go-slam: Global optimization for consistent 3d in- stant reconstruction. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3727–3737, 2023. 2

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sni-slam: Semantic neural implicit slam

    Siting Zhu, Guangming Wang, Hermann Blum, Jiuming Liu, Liang Song, Marc Pollefeys, and Hesheng Wang. Sni-slam: Semantic neural implicit slam. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21167– 21177, 2024. 2

    2024

  42. [50]

    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 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12786–12796, 2022. 6

    2022

  43. [51]

    Oswald, Andreas Geiger, and Marc Pollefeys

    Zihan Zhu, Songyou Peng, Viktor Larsson, Zhaopeng Cui, Martin R. Oswald, Andreas Geiger, and Marc Pollefeys. Nicer-slam: Neural implicit scene encoding for rgb slam. In International Conference on 3D Vision, pages 42–52, 2024. 2 SEGS-SLAM: Structure-enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatt...

    2024

  44. [52]

    8 introduces more details of FPR

    Overview The supplementary material is organized as follows: (1) Sec. 8 introduces more details of FPR. (2) Sec. 9 presents additional ablation studies. (3) Sec. 10 provides real- time performance for all methods. (4) Sec. 11 pro- vides additional implementation details, inclu...

  45. [53]

    However, we observe that structured 3D Gaus- sians perform poorly in rendering high-frequency details, such as object edges and areas with complex textures

    Details of FPR In scenes with simple structures, our structured 3D Gaus- sians can effectively model both structure and appearance changes. However, we observe that structured 3D Gaus- sians perform poorly in rendering high-frequency details, such as object edges and areas wit...

  46. [54]

    We think that multiple scales improve the consistency under varying observation distances

    Additional Ablation Studies Scale level of FPR. We think that multiple scales improve the consistency under varying observation distances. The scale level of FPR is set to 3. Results are shown in Tab. 5. The low-frequency component in FPR. In our experi- ments, we find that th...

  47. [55]

    We note that only tracking and rendering are real- time

    Real-time performance Our method, following Photo-SLAM, employs two paral- lel threads: Localization & Geometry Mapping and 3D-GS Mapping. We note that only tracking and rendering are real- time. The runtime of all methods is provided in Tab. 8

  48. [56]

    System Overview Our system comprises two main modules: localization and geometry mapping and progressively refined 3D Gaussian splatting (3D-GS)

    Implementation details 11.1. System Overview Our system comprises two main modules: localization and geometry mapping and progressively refined 3D Gaussian splatting (3D-GS). In our implementation, these two mod- ules run in separate threads. The localization and geome- try ma...

  49. [57]

    Per-scene Results

    Additional Qualitative Results 12.1. Per-scene Results. Tab. 9, Tab. 10, Tab. 13a, Tab. 11, Tab. 12, and Tab. 13b present the photorealistic mapping and localization results of our method across all datasets for each scene. Addition- ally, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 16, a...

  50. [58]

    SSIM↑ 0.789 0.850 0.831 0.687 0.789 LPIPS↓ 0.243 0.181 0.287 0.384 0.274 Photo- PSNR↑ 11.22 11.14 13.78 11.46 11.90 SLAM SSIM↑ 0.300 0.306 0.520 0.509 0.409

  51. [59]

    The best results are marked as best score and second best score

    LPIPS↓ 0.469 0.464 0.394 0.427 0.439 Photo- PSNR↑ 11.10 11.04 13.66 11.26 11.77 SLAM- SSIM↑ 0.296 0.300 0.516 0.508 0.405 30K LPIPS↓ 0.466 0.457 0.389 0.409 0.430 Ours PSNR↑ 22.50 22.30 24.90 24.89 23.64 SSIM↑ 0.750 0.727 0.843 0.842 0.791 LPIPS↓ 0.220 0.269 0.122 0.117 0.182 ...

Pith tools

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