Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Scalable Autoregressive Monocular Depth Estimation

T0 review · 3 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 The paper advances the claim that monocular depth estimation can be recast as two coupled autoregressive objectives—over resolution and over granularity—and that the resulting DAR model beats prior state of the art on KITTI and NYU Depth…

desk verdict Solid, well-executed depth-estimation paper with real SOTA numbers, but the 'first autoregressive MDE' claim is overbroad and the MTBin error-tolerance assumption needs a diagnostic. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11361 v3 pith:GI43PTFL submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV

Jinhong Wang , Jian Liu , Dongqi Tang , Weiqiang Wang , Wentong Li , Danny Chen , Jintai Chen , Jian Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords autoregressivedepthestimationmonocularresolutionobjectivegranularityMultiwayTreeBinspatch-wisecausalmaskordinalregressionzero-shotgeneralization
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

Monocular depth estimation predicts a per-pixel depth map from a single RGB image, and is usually framed as one-shot dense regression. This paper argues that the task can instead be posed as two coupled autoregressive prediction problems: generating depth maps from low to high resolution, and refining depth values from coarse to fine bins. The resulting model, DAR, uses a decoder-only Transformer with a patch-wise causal mask for the resolution axis and a Multiway Tree Bins strategy with Bins Injection for the granularity axis. On KITTI and NYU Depth V2 the paper reports state-of-the-art results, and scaling the model to 2.0B parameters brings KITTI RMSE to 1.799, about 5% below the 1.896 of the previous best method. The paper also reports zero-shot generalization to an unseen dataset without large-scale pretraining, and argues that autoregressive prediction is therefore an effective and scalable paradigm for monocular depth estimation.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing mechanisms are the patch-wise causal attention mask and the Multiway Tree Bins (MTBin) strategy. The mask lets the DAR Transformer treat each resolution level's token map as a single merged patch-wise token, so that a token at step $k$ can attend to its own map and all prefix maps but not to future maps; this is what carries the low-to-high resolution autoregressive objective. MTBin takes the previous step's predicted depth for a pixel, expands the bin range to include the adjacent bins on either side as error tolerance, and splits that range into new sub-bins that become the depth candidates for the next finer prediction; this is what carries the coarse-to-fine granularity autoregressive objective. A Bins Injection module, a ConvGRU that takes convolved bin candidates as context, couples the two processes by feeding granularity information into the resolution autoregressive token maps.

What would settle it

Run DAR's training loop on KITTI or NYU and record, at each autoregressive step, the fraction of valid pixels whose ground-truth depth falls inside the expanded bin range $[b^{t-1}, b^{t+2}]$ of MTBin. If that coverage fraction drops substantially below 1 at later steps—or if removing the one-bin expansion and splitting only the predicted bin produces nearly the same final RMSE—then the error-tolerance mechanism is not doing the work the paper's argument requires, and the coarse-to-fine recursion can lock onto wrong intervals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two ordering properties inherent to a depth map—spatial resolution and value granularity—are sufficient to turn monocular depth estimation into an autoregressive sequence problem. DAR is presented as the first autoregressive model for this task. It predicts depth maps at increasing resolutions, conditioning each higher-resolution map on all previous maps through a patch-wise causal mask, while simultaneously refining each pixel's depth range through MTBin, which re-centers the bin range on the previous coarse prediction and expands it by one bin on each side for error tolerance. The final depth at each step is a linear combination of softmax probabilities and bin centers, and the bin information is injected back into the latent token map through a ConvGRU module. The paper reports that this design outperforms prior state of the art on both NYU Depth V2 and KITTI, and that performance keeps improving as the model is scaled from 440M to 1B to 2B parameters, which it takes as evidence that autoregressive modeling is an effective and scalable paradigm for monocular depth estimation.

Load-bearing premise

The granularity autoregressive objective assumes that each pixel's previous-step prediction lands within one bin width of the true depth, because MTBin only expands the search range to the adjacent bins before splitting; if the coarse prediction is off by more than that, the true depth falls outside every candidate bin center and the model's loss at that pixel is irreducibly high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, autoregressive prediction becomes a competitive alternative to encoder-decoder and diffusion backbones for monocular depth estimation, using the same architectural family that powers large language models.
  • Scaling behavior on model size suggests depth quality continues to improve up to at least 2.0B parameters, so larger DAR models would be a natural next test rather than a plateau.
  • Because the method reports strong zero-shot transfer after training on only one dataset, it may reduce the need for massive unlabeled pretraining in depth estimation.
  • The granularity objective with MTBin offers a new way to interleave discrete bin prediction with continuous regression, which could transfer to other continuous per-pixel prediction tasks.
  • The design points toward a practical route for adding metric depth prediction to existing autoregressive foundation models that currently lack dense visual output capabilities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the paper leaves implicit is that the one-bin error tolerance in MTBin sets a ceiling on how many refinement steps are useful: after enough steps, a non-trivial fraction of pixels will fall outside the expanded range, and their loss becomes irreducible. A testable extension would be to measure that coverage fraction per step and adapt the number of steps accordingly.
  • The resolution autoregressive objective can be read as a learned replacement for the skip connections and feature fusion used in encoder-decoder depth models; if so, the same mask-plus-upsampling pattern might transfer to other dense prediction tasks such as surface-normal or optical-flow estimation.
  • The paper's own limitations section notes that the progressive multi-step paradigm can blur boundaries and that the autoregressive Transformer is parameter-heavy; a natural follow-up is to test distillation or lighter AR transformer variants that preserve the reported gains at lower cost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DAR, an autoregressive model for monocular depth estimation that predicts depth maps in a sequence of low-to-high resolutions (resolution AR) while simultaneously discretizing the depth range into progressively finer bins via a new Multiway Tree Bins (MTBin) strategy and injecting bin information into the latent token maps. Using a pretrained ViT encoder and a decoder-only DAR Transformer, the authors report state-of-the-art results on KITTI and NYU Depth v2, zero-shot generalization to SUN RGB-D, and scaling behavior up to 2.0B parameters.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides evidence that autoregressive prediction is an effective and scalable paradigm for dense continuous prediction, and the resolution-granularity factorization is a useful new design. The strengths include benchmarking on held-out test splits against external baselines, a held-out zero-shot dataset, and an ablation study that shows each proposed component improves the baseline. The main weakness is that the core granularity mechanism rests on an unverified coverage assumption about the MTBin recursion, which the paper does not quantify.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (6)-(9)] The MTBin recursion expands the depth support to only the adjacent bins of the previous prediction, so any ground-truth value outside [b^{t-1}_{k-1}, b^{t+2}_{k-1}] is unrepresentable by the linear combination in Eq. (9) at that step; the paper never reports how often this occurs at each autoregressive step, nor how the loss in Eq. (13) treats such pixels. Because the bin selection is based on the model's own previous prediction rather than teacher forcing, an early error of more than one bin width can permanently exclude the true depth from the support and create an irreducible loss floor. Please provide coverage statistics on the training and test sets, and describe the training strategy (e.g., clamping, teacher forcing, or probabilistic bin selection) that mitigates this issue.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (5)] The operation that selects the bin index t from the continuous predicted depth \tilde{D}_{k-1}(x) is a hard threshold (Eq. 5), and the subsequent bin boundaries in Eq. (7) are defined through this discrete index; the paper does not explain how gradients flow through this selection during end-to-end training. If a straight-through estimator or a soft approximation is used, it should be stated; otherwise it is unclear that the granularity objective can be optimized as described.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Tables 2-3] The claim of beating Depth Anything "with a similar model size" is not tightly controlled: DAR-Small has 440M parameters versus Depth Anything's 343M, and DAR-Large has 2.0B, so part of the improvement may be attributable to the additional parameters and the multi-step compute budget. Please report a parameter-matched comparison (e.g., a DAR variant with roughly 343M parameters) or give wall-clock inference time and FLOPs for the compared models to support the claim that the autoregressive paradigm itself is the source of the gains.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 1] The claim of being the "first autoregressive model for MDE" is stronger than needed given that Ord2Seq, cited later, is already an autoregressive ordinal-regression sequence predictor; consider rephrasing to "first autoregressive model for MDE with the proposed resolution and granularity objectives."
  2. [Eq. (13) and Sec. 4.1] The parameters α and β of the scale-invariant loss are said to follow [29], but the original BTS loss uses different notational conventions; please clarify the exact relationship.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The patch-wise causal mask is only described informally; a formal definition of the mask matrix over the concatenated token maps of all resolutions would make the method reproducible.
  4. [Fig. 3] The diagram is dense and the tensor shapes are not annotated; adding shape annotations at each stage would improve readability.
  5. [Table 4] Specify whether Depth Anything is used in its zero-shot pretrained form or after fine-tuning on NYU Depth v2, since the caption says all models are "trained on NYU Depth V2."
  6. [Table 5] The parameter counts in the ablation rows decrease when adding MTBin and BI (420M to 363M); please explain what components are included in each row so the attribution of gains is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the resolution and granularity autoregressive objectives are trained against ground truth and validated on external benchmarks, so the central claim does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that coupling resolution-level and granularity-level autoregressive objectives yields state-of-the-art monocular depth estimates—is supported by supervised training against ground-truth depth (Eq. 13) and by comparisons to external methods on the held-out KITTI, NYU Depth v2, and SUN RGB-D test sets. The MTBin recursion uses the model's own previous prediction to place the next bin candidates (Eqs. 5-9), but this is iterative autoregressive conditioning rather than circularity: at every step the loss is computed against ground truth, and no test-set quantity is fitted. The unquantified one-bin error-tolerance assumption in Eqs. 6-7 is a robustness and correctness concern, not a circular step, because the paper does not define the prediction in terms of the target metric. The only self-citation, Ord2Seq [56], is invoked in Related Work as inspiration for ordinal-regression-as-sequence prediction and is not load-bearing for DAR's design or its empirical evaluation; no uniqueness theorem or fitted ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Consequently, the reported state-of-the-art results are externally falsifiable and the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

DAR's central claim rests on a handful of enumerated choices. The free parameters listed are architectural defaults (N=16 bins, K=5 steps, one-bin error-tolerance expansion) and standard loss and dataset constants (alpha=10, beta=0.85 from BTS; depth ranges 0.1-10 m and 0.1-80 m). None of these are fitted to the evaluation sets to manufacture the headline numbers, but the paper provides no sensitivity analysis for N or K in the main text. The axioms are the method's inductive biases: depth maps factorize across resolutions (Eq 2), the coarse-to-fine bin recursion covers the ground truth within one bin of the previous prediction (Eqs 5-7), the pretrained Depth Anything ViT-L encoder carries generalizable features, and the ordinal-regression readout is adequate. The coverage axiom is the most fragile: the paper never measures how often the truth falls outside the expanded interval. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of bins per step N = 16
    Default bin count for the granularity AR objective at each autoregressive step (Sec 3.4, Eq 10). Ablation deferred to supplemental, not shown in main text.
  • Number of autoregressive steps K = 5
    Maximum resolution and granularity refinement steps in the loss (Sec 3.5, Eq 13). Chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis shown.
  • MTBin error-tolerance expansion width = 1 bin on each side ([t-1, t+2])
    Expansion range for the next-step depth interval (Sec 3.4, Eqs 6-7). This hand-chosen tolerance determines whether ground truth stays representable in Eq 9.
  • Scale-invariant loss coefficients alpha, beta = 10, 0.85
    Loss hyperparameters taken from BTS (ref [29], Sec 3.5 Eq 13); adopted, not tuned here.
  • Depth range [dmin, dmax] = [0.1, 10] NYU, [0.1, 80] KITTI
    Depth intervals for the initial uniform bins (Sec 3.4, Eq 10). Dataset-standard bounds, set manually.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Depth maps admit a low-to-high resolution autoregressive factorization (Eq 2): each higher-resolution depth map is conditionally dependent on all lower-resolution predecessors.
    The resolution AR objective (Sec 3.2-3.3) presupposes this ordering carries the information needed for accurate dense prediction. It is the central inductive bias of the method.
  • domain assumption The previous step's per-pixel prediction is within one bin of the ground truth, so the expanded range [b^{t-1}, b^{t+2}] covers the truth during training and inference.
    Sec 3.4, Eqs 5-7: MTBin's error tolerance is one bin on each side. If the truth lies outside, Eq 9's softmax mixture cannot represent it and the loss is irreducible; the paper neither quantifies nor handles this case.
  • domain assumption The Depth Anything ViT-L encoder pretrained on about 62M images supplies features strong enough that the AR decoder's improvements transfer to unseen datasets and carry the zero-shot result.
    Sec 3.5 states the encoder is the same ViT as Depth Anything; Sec 4.4 confirms the baseline is Depth Anything's backbone. The zero-shot claim in Sec 4.3 inherits this pretraining.
  • standard math Ordinal-regression readout, a linear combination of bin centers and softmax scores (Eq 9), is an adequate representation for metric depth.
    Standard formulation from DORN (ref [14]) and AdaBins (ref [4]), adopted without modification beyond the recursive bin choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Autoregressive Monocular Depth Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GI43PTFL

@misc{pith2026241111361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Autoregressive Monocular Depth Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GI43PTFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11361}
}
read the original abstract

This paper shows that the autoregressive model is an effective and scalable monocular depth estimator. Our idea is simple: We tackle the monocular depth estimation (MDE) task with an autoregressive prediction paradigm, based on two core designs. First, our depth autoregressive model (DAR) treats the depth map of different resolutions as a set of tokens, and conducts the low-to-high resolution autoregressive objective with a patch-wise casual mask. Second, our DAR recursively discretizes the entire depth range into more compact intervals, and attains the coarse-to-fine granularity autoregressive objective in an ordinal-regression manner. By coupling these two autoregressive objectives, our DAR establishes new state-of-the-art (SOTA) on KITTI and NYU Depth v2 by clear margins. Further, our scalable approach allows us to scale the model up to 2.0B and achieve the best RMSE of 1.799 on the KITTI dataset (5% improvement) compared to 1.896 by the current SOTA (Depth Anything). DAR further showcases zero-shot generalization ability on unseen datasets. These results suggest that DAR yields superior performance with an autoregressive prediction paradigm, providing a promising approach to equip modern autoregressive large models (e.g., GPT-4o) with depth estimation capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We exploit two “order” properties of the MDE task that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RMSE performances (↓) vs. model sizes on the KITTI dataset. Our DAR shows strong scalability and achieves better performance-efficiency trade-off among cutting-edge methods. object detection [10] and tracking [59], among others. This naturally leads to an interesting question: Can an autoregressive model be developed for the MDE task? However, autoregressive modeling relies on a well￾organized sequential data format… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of DAR. We begin with encoding the input RGB images into image tokens as the context condition. At each step, DAR Transformer with the patch-wise causal mask performs autoregressive predictions, that is, it allows the input token map (upsampled from the previous resolution token map rk−1) to interact with only the prefix tokens and global image feature tokens for the next-resolution token map modeling. T… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A schematic diagram of the multiway tree bins strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results on the NYU Depth V2 dataset. A brighter color denotes a closer distance. Loss Function. Since the ground-truth depth map has miss￾ing values, we cannot resize the ground-truth to different resolutions. Thus, we upsample all the predicted depth maps …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results on the KITTI dataset. A darker color denotes a closer distance. then linearly decrease it across the training iterations. The mini-batch size is 16. We train our model for 25 epochs for both the KITTI and NYU Depth v2 datasets. In each step, the num…

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. ER-LoRA: Effective-Rank Guided Adaptation for Weather-Generalized Depth Estimation

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Tuning only 8.7M parameters of a frozen DINOv2 on daytime data is reported to beat prior PEFT, full fine-tuning, synthetic-data depth methods, and Depth Anything V2 on zero-shot adverse-weather benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [56]

    Ord2Seq: Regarding ordinal regression as label sequence prediction

    Jinhong Wang, Yi Cheng, Jintai Chen, TingTing Chen, Danny Chen, and Jian Wu. Ord2Seq: Regarding ordinal regression as label sequence prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 5865–5875, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    GPT-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ah- mad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 ,

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Attention attention ev- erywhere: Monocular depth prediction with skip attention

    Ashutosh Agarwal and Chetan Arora. Attention attention ev- erywhere: Monocular depth prediction with skip attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Ap- plications of Computer Vision, pages 5861–5870, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Bidirectional attention network for monocular depth estimation

    Shubhra Aich, Jean Marie Uwabeza Vianney, Md Amirul Is- lam, and Mannat Kaur Bingbing Liu. Bidirectional attention network for monocular depth estimation. In 2021 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 11746–11752. IEEE, 2021. 1, 3

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    AdaBins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Ibraheem Alhashim, and Peter Wonka. AdaBins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4009–4018, 2021. 3, 4, 6, 7

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    LocalBins: Improving depth estimation by learning local dis- tributions

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Ibraheem Alhashim, and Peter Wonka. LocalBins: Improving depth estimation by learning local dis- tributions. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 480–496. Springer, 2022. 6

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    ZoeDepth: Zero-shot trans- fer by combining relative and metric depth

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Reiner Birkl, Diana Wofk, Peter Wonka, and Matthias M ¨uller. ZoeDepth: Zero-shot trans- fer by combining relative and metric depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom B Brown. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. 1

    arXiv 2005

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    On the robustness of language guidance for low-level vision tasks: Findings from depth estimation

    Agneet Chatterjee, Tejas Gokhale, Chitta Baral, and Yezhou Yang. On the robustness of language guidance for low-level vision tasks: Findings from depth estimation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2794–2803, 2024. 3

    2024

  2. [9]

    Towards scene understanding: Un- supervised monocular depth estimation with semantic-aware representation

    Po-Yi Chen, Alexander H Liu, Yen-Cheng Liu, and Yu- Chiang Frank Wang. Towards scene understanding: Un- supervised monocular depth estimation with semantic-aware representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2624– ...

    2019

  3. [10]

    Pix2Seq: A language modeling framework for object detection

    Ting Chen, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, David J Fleet, and Ge- offrey Hinton. Pix2Seq: A language modeling framework for object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10852, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    DiffusionDepth: Diffusion denoising approach for monocular depth estima- tion

    Yiqun Duan, Xianda Guo, and Zheng Zhu. DiffusionDepth: Diffusion denoising approach for monocular depth estima- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05021, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Depth map prediction from a single image using a multi-scale deep net- work

    David Eigen, Christian Puhrsch, and Rob Fergus. Depth map prediction from a single image using a multi-scale deep net- work. NIPS, 27, 2014. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2014

  6. [13]

    Taming Transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Robin Rombach, and Bjorn Ommer. Taming Transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12873–12883, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  7. [14]

    Deep ordinal regression net- work for monocular depth estimation

    Huan Fu, Mingming Gong, Chaohui Wang, Kayhan Bat- manghelich, and Dacheng Tao. Deep ordinal regression net- work for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 2002–2011, 2018. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

    2002

  8. [15]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the KITTI vision benchmark suite

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, and Raquel Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the KITTI vision benchmark suite. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3354–3361. IEEE, 2012. 7

    2012

  9. [16]

    Regression modeling strategies

    Frank E Harrell. Regression modeling strategies. R Package V ersion, pages 6–2, 2012. 3

    2012

  10. [17]

    Scaling laws for autoregressive generative modeling

    Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, et al. Scaling laws for autoregressive generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14701, 2020. 1, 6

    2010 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Sup- port vector learning for ordinal regression

    Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and Klaus Obermayer. Sup- port vector learning for ordinal regression. 1999. 3

    1999

  12. [19]

    Training compute-optimal large language mod- els

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022. 6

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Recov- ering surface layout from an image

    Derek Hoiem, Alexei A Efros, and Martial Hebert. Recov- ering surface layout from an image. International Journal of Computer Vision, 75:151–172, 2007. 2

    2007

  14. [21]

    KinectFusion: Real-time 3D reconstruction and in- teraction using a moving depth camera

    Shahram Izadi, David Kim, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, Richard Newcombe, Pushmeet Kohli, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, Dustin Freeman, Andrew Davison, et al. KinectFusion: Real-time 3D reconstruction and in- teraction using a moving depth camera. In Proceedings of the 24th ...

    2011

  15. [22]

    DDP: Diffusion model for dense visual prediction

    Yuanfeng Ji, Zhe Chen, Enze Xie, Lanqing Hong, Xihui Liu, Zhaoqiang Liu, Tong Lu, Zhenguo Li, and Ping Luo. DDP: Diffusion model for dense visual prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 21741–21752, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  16. [23]

    Object servoing of differential-drive service robots us- ing switched control

    Weibin Jia, Wenjie Zhao, Zhihuan Song, and Zhengguo Li. Object servoing of differential-drive service robots us- ing switched control. Journal of Control and Decision , 10(3):314–325, 2023. 1

    2023

  17. [24]

    Scaling laws for neural language models

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361 ,

    2001 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Repurpos- ing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation

    Bingxin Ke, Anton Obukhov, Shengyu Huang, Nando Met- zger, Rodrigo Caye Daudt, and Konrad Schindler. Repurpos- ing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 9492...

    2024

  19. [26]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization

    Diederik P Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 6

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Deeper depth prediction with fully convolutional residual networks

    Iro Laina, Christian Rupprecht, Vasileios Belagiannis, Fed- erico Tombari, and Nassir Navab. Deeper depth prediction with fully convolutional residual networks. In 2016 F ourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV) , pages 239–

    2016

  21. [28]

    Autoregressive image generation using residual quantization

    Doyup Lee, Chiheon Kim, Saehoon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Wook-Shin Han. Autoregressive image generation using residual quantization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 11523–11532, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  22. [29]

    From big to small: Multi-scale local planar guidance for monocular depth estimation

    Jin Han Lee, Myung-Kyu Han, Dong Wook Ko, and Il Hong Suh. From big to small: Multi-scale local planar guidance for monocular depth estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10326, 2019. 6, 7

    1907 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Monocular depth es- timation using relative depth maps

    Jae-Han Lee and Chang-Su Kim. Monocular depth es- timation using relative depth maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9729–9738, 2019. 7

    2019

  24. [31]

    DepthFormer: Exploiting long-range correlation and local information for accurate monocular depth estimation

    Zhenyu Li, Zehui Chen, Xianming Liu, and Junjun Jiang. DepthFormer: Exploiting long-range correlation and local information for accurate monocular depth estimation. Ma- chine Intelligence Research, 20(6):837–854, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  25. [32]

    BinsFormer: Revisiting adaptive bins for monocular depth estimation

    Zhenyu Li, Xuyang Wang, Xianming Liu, and Junjun Jiang. BinsFormer: Revisiting adaptive bins for monocular depth estimation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2024. 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  26. [33]

    V A-DepthNet: A variational ap- proach to single image depth prediction

    Ce Liu, Suryansh Kumar, Shuhang Gu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. V A-DepthNet: A variational ap- proach to single image depth prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06556, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    SIFT Flow: Dense correspondence across different scenes

    Ce Liu, Jenny Yuen, Antonio Torralba, Josef Sivic, and William T Freeman. SIFT Flow: Dense correspondence across different scenes. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2008: 10th European Conference on Computer Vision, Marseille, France, October 12-18, 2008, Proceedings, Part III 10 , page...

    2008

  28. [35]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 1

    2024

  29. [36]

    Dense depth estimation in monocular endoscopy with self- supervised learning methods

    Xingtong Liu, Ayushi Sinha, Masaru Ishii, Gregory D Hager, Austin Reiter, Russell H Taylor, and Mathias Unberath. Dense depth estimation in monocular endoscopy with self- supervised learning methods. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 39(5):1438–1447, 2019. 1

    2019

  30. [37]

    Eval- uation of gaze depth estimation from eye tracking in aug- mented reality

    Seyda Oney, Nils Rodrigues, Michael Becher, Thomas Ertl, Guido Reina, Michael Sedlmair, and Daniel Weiskopf. Eval- uation of gaze depth estimation from eye tracking in aug- mented reality. In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Re- search and Applications, pages 1–5, 2020. 1

    2020

  31. [38]

    P3Depth: Monocular depth estimation with a piecewise planarity prior

    Vaishakh Patil, Christos Sakaridis, Alexander Liniger, and Luc Van Gool. P3Depth: Monocular depth estimation with a piecewise planarity prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1610–1621, 2022. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2022

  32. [39]

    ECoDepth: Effective conditioning of diffusion models for monocular depth estimation

    Suraj Patni, Aradhye Agarwal, and Chetan Arora. ECoDepth: Effective conditioning of diffusion models for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 28285–28295, 2024. 3, 6, 7

    2024

  33. [40]

    iDisc: Internal discretization for monocular depth estimation

    Luigi Piccinelli, Christos Sakaridis, and Fisher Yu. iDisc: Internal discretization for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 21477–21487, 2023. 7

    2023

  34. [41]

    Improving language understanding by gener- ative pre-training

    Alec Radford. Improving language understanding by gener- ative pre-training. 2018. 1

    2018

  35. [42]

    Language models are unsu- pervised multitask learners

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsu- pervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1(8):9, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  36. [43]

    Vi- sion Transformers for dense prediction

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vi- sion Transformers for dense prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 12179–12188, 2021. 6, 7

    2021

  37. [44]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer

    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 Ma- chine Intelligence, 44(3):1623–1637, 2020. 3

    2020

  38. [45]

    Gen- erating diverse high-fidelity images with VQ-V AE-2

    Ali Razavi, Aaron Van den Oord, and Oriol Vinyals. Gen- erating diverse high-fidelity images with VQ-V AE-2. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019. 3

    2019

  39. [46]

    Learning 3-D scene structure from a single still image

    Ashutosh Saxena, Min Sun, and Andrew Y Ng. Learning 3-D scene structure from a single still image. In 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1–

    2007

  40. [47]

    Monocular depth estimation using diffusion models

    Saurabh Saxena, Abhishek Kar, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Monocular depth estimation using diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14816, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  41. [48]

    NDDepth: Normal-distance as- sisted monocular depth estimation

    Shuwei Shao, Zhongcai Pei, Weihai Chen, Xingming Wu, and Zhengguo Li. NDDepth: Normal-distance as- sisted monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 7931–7940, 2023. 6

    2023

  42. [49]

    IEBins: Iterative elastic bins for monocular depth estimation

    Shuwei Shao, Zhongcai Pei, Xingming Wu, Zhong Liu, Wei- hai Chen, and Zhengguo Li. IEBins: Iterative elastic bins for monocular depth estimation. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  43. [50]

    Indoor segmentation and support inference from RGBD images

    Nathan Silberman, Derek Hoiem, Pushmeet Kohli, and Rob Fergus. Indoor segmentation and support inference from RGBD images. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2012: 12th Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision, Florence, Italy, Oc- tober 7-13, 2012, Proceedings, Part V 12 , pages 746–760...

    2012

  44. [51]

    SUN RGB-D: A RGB-D scene understanding benchmark suite

    Shuran Song, Samuel P Lichtenberg, and Jianxiong Xiao. SUN RGB-D: A RGB-D scene understanding benchmark suite. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 567–576, 2015. 7, 8

    2015

  45. [52]

    RAFT: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. RAFT: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16 , pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  46. [53]

    Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable im- age generation via next-scale prediction

    Keyu Tian, Yi Jiang, Zehuan Yuan, Bingyue Peng, and Li- wei Wang. Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable im- age generation via next-scale prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02905, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Neural discrete representation learning

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017. 3 10

    2017

  48. [55]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017. 2, 4

    2017

  49. [57]

    DCDepth: Progressive monocular depth estimation in discrete Cosine domain

    Kun Wang, Zhiqiang Yan, Junkai Fan, Wanlu Zhu, Xiang Li, Jun Li, and Jian Yang. DCDepth: Progressive monocular depth estimation in discrete Cosine domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14980, 2024. 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Pseudo- LiDAR from visual depth estimation: Bridging the gap in 3D object detection for autonomous driving

    Yan Wang, Wei-Lun Chao, Divyansh Garg, Bharath Hari- haran, Mark Campbell, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Pseudo- LiDAR from visual depth estimation: Bridging the gap in 3D object detection for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat-...

    2019

  51. [59]

    Autoregressive visual tracking

    Xing Wei, Yifan Bai, Yongchao Zheng, Dahu Shi, and Yi- hong Gong. Autoregressive visual tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 9697–9706, 2023. 2

    2023

  52. [60]

    N ¨UW A: Visual synthesis pre- training for neural visual world creation

    Chenfei Wu, Jian Liang, Lei Ji, Fan Yang, Yuejian Fang, Daxin Jiang, and Nan Duan. N ¨UW A: Visual synthesis pre- training for neural visual world creation. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 720–736. Springer, 2022. 1

    2022

  53. [61]

    VideoGPT: Video generation using VQ-V AE and Transformers

    Wilson Yan, Yunzhi Zhang, Pieter Abbeel, and Aravind Srinivas. VideoGPT: Video generation using VQ-V AE and Transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10157, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Transformer-based attention networks for continuous pixel-wise prediction

    Guanglei Yang, Hao Tang, Mingli Ding, Nicu Sebe, and Elisa Ricci. Transformer-based attention networks for continuous pixel-wise prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer vision , pages 16269–16279, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  55. [63]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10371–10381, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  56. [64]

    NeW CRFs: Neural window fully-connected CRFs for monocular depth estimation

    Weihao Yuan, Xiaodong Gu, Zuozhuo Dai, Siyu Zhu, and Ping Tan. NeW CRFs: Neural window fully-connected CRFs for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3916–3925, 2022. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2022

  57. [65]

    WorDepth: Vari- ational language prior for monocular depth estimation

    Ziyao Zeng, Daniel Wang, Fengyu Yang, Hyoungseob Park, Stefano Soatto, Dong Lao, and Alex Wong. WorDepth: Vari- ational language prior for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 9708–9719, 2024. 3, 6, 7

    2024

  58. [66]

    Unleashing text-to-image diffu- sion models for visual perception

    Wenliang Zhao, Yongming Rao, Zuyan Liu, Benlin Liu, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Unleashing text-to-image diffu- sion models for visual perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5729–5739, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 8 11

    2023

Pith tools

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