Zero-Shot Polygon Matching with Pre-trained Models for Pose Estimation and Polygon Cloud from Challenging Stereo

Chang Li; Xingtao Peng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 10 references

Zero-Shot Polygon Matching with Pre-trained Models for Pose Estimation and Polygon Cloud from Challenging Stereo

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims training-free polygon-to-polygon stereo matching is achievable, reporting 68.6% precision on SceneFlow.

desk verdict The real contribution is a new task formulation—direct polygon-to-polygon stereo matching—but the headline numbers are not yet believable because the benchmark is author-built and hyperparameters are tuned on the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.05949 v2 pith:M7ZCVCN6 submitted 2025-11-08 cs.CV

Chang Li , Xingtao Peng This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords polygonmatchingstereozero-shotlearningsegmentanythingmodelbipartitegraphposeestimation3Dreconstructionfeature

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that polygon-level stereo matching—matching 2D region contours rather than points or lines—can be done with a training-free pipeline that composes pre-trained models with handcrafted geometric constraints. It introduces a detector that turns SAM masks into graph-structured polygons, a global matcher using bidirectional pyramid search with epipolar constraints, and a local matcher that resolves topological and disparity inconsistencies through bipartite graph optimization. On SceneFlow, the method reports 68.60% matching precision, roughly 32 points above the best comparable baseline, with ablations attributing most of the gain to the local matching module. The same correspondences are then used for area-level pose estimation and a proposed 'polygon cloud' 3D representation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are the bidirectional pyramid search and LoJoGM. The bidirectional pyramid progressively narrows the search window for each source polygon across an image pyramid using template matching and epipolar constraints, converting a global many-to-many search into a small candidate set. LoJoGM (local-joint geometry and multi-feature matching) builds a bipartite graph between source and candidate polygons, weights edges by a joint geometric–texture correlation (area discrepancy, graph-based shape distance, and normalized cross-correlation), and applies the Hungarian algorithm to enforce globally optimal one-to-one matches that absorb local topological inconsistencies.

What would settle it

Take a stereo pair with strong viewpoint change where SAM produces different numbers of masks for the same building (one mask on the left, two on the right). If the pipeline still reports a clean one-to-one match for that building with high confidence, it would challenge the concern; if it yields a mismatch or fails, the claim that LoJoGM resolves topological inconsistency is bounded by SAM's consistency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to be the first to solve direct polygon-to-polygon matching for stereo images without any training. The pipeline takes SAM segmentations from both views, vectorizes mask contours into graph-structured polygons, then refines a coarse global match through a bidirectional pyramid search and a local joint geometry and multi-feature matching step (LoJoGM) that solves a bipartite assignment with the Hungarian algorithm. On SceneFlow, the approach reaches 68.60% matching precision with SuperPoint+LightGlue, about 32 points above the MESA baseline, and ablation shows the area coverage ratio drops from 89.02 to 14.21 when LoJoGM is removed. The authors further use the correspondences

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline presupposes that SAM segments the same objects into comparable polygons in both views; if segmentation is topologically inconsistent between the two images, the graph structures fed to the matcher are already mismatched and a correct one-to-one correspondence is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, stereo correspondence moves from points and lines to region-level primitives, giving downstream tasks higher-level structure without labelled data.
The pipeline is modular: any pre-trained segmentor or feature matcher can be swapped in, so improvements in those models should transfer directly to polygon matching.
On large-format aerial imagery, the bidirectional pyramid keeps runtime nearly constant while maintaining area coverage, suggesting scalability to very high resolution stereo pairs.
Area-level correspondences enable pose estimation that uses well-distributed, low-redundancy homologous points, improving robustness over point-only methods.
The same matches support a 'polygon cloud' representation that preserves semantic and structural completeness beyond point and line clouds.

Reading between the lines

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

The method's ceiling appears tied to SAM's segmentation consistency across viewpoints: appendix results show F1 drops from 0.79 to 0.66 when switching from vit-h to vit-l, so a segmentor with greater stereo cross-view consistency would likely raise matching precision further.
Because LoJoGM is a generic bipartite assignment over local neighbourhoods, the same local matcher could be grafted onto other coarse correspondence problems, such as instance-level video tracking or semantic map merging across overlapping images.
If deeper integration of learned geometry (e.g., predicted disparity) replaced the handcrafted homography-based initial registration, the global matcher's acknowledged failure mode under local disparity inconsistency might shrink.
The proposed ground-truth generation via multi-metric similarity could be reused as a standard evaluation protocol for future polygon matching research.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, what's actually new: this is the first time I've seen direct matching of vectorized polygon primitives between stereo images, as opposed to matching areas as a byproduct of point matching. The idea—use SAM to get masks, vectorize and graph-structure them, then coarsely align with a bidirectional pyramid over LoFTR matches and refine with Hungarian-based local matching that mixes geometry and texture—is coherent and genuinely not present in MESA, SGAM, or MASA. The ablation is internally consistent: remove LoJoGM and ACR collapses from 89 to 14, a strong signal that the local matcher is doing real work. Credit where it's due: the authors are tackling a real gap and the pipeline is put together thoughtfully.

But the effectiveness claim doesn't hold up yet. The stress-test note is on target. Appendix 4.2 says all hyperparameters are "empirically determined based on test." That alone makes the reported 68.60% MP a post-selection optimum, not the performance of a fixed method on unseen data. The benchmark itself is author-defined: GT generation uses hand-set weights and thresholds, and the three metrics (ACR, SAS, MP) were invented for this paper. MP aggregates all matched polygons into a single region before IoU, which can hide topological mismatches. Without code or data, no one can check whether the 32-point margin over MESA survives standard evaluation practices. The abstract also misstates the headline number: 68.60% is Matching Precision, not a "matching area score." And on ScanNet, SGAM beats both U(PM)2 variants on SAS, so calling the method SOTA unconditionally is wrong.

There are manuscript-level problems that would need fixing in revision. The abstract describes a different paper—Z(PM)2 with pose estimation and polygon clouds—while the body is about U(PM)2 and contains no pose-estimation experiments. That's not a minor typo; it means the title and abstract don't match the actual content. Eq. (6) looks malformed—the indices don't parse—and the "first polygon matching" claim ignores geospatial conflation work. The SAM-dependence concern is real but secondary; the paper itself notes that global matcher failure can occur, and the local matcher is designed to handle it. The deeper issue is that we can't trust the measurement to tell us whether it handles it.

Who's this for? Anyone working on feature matching, segmentation-based correspondence, or 3D reconstruction from stereo would find the task formulation interesting. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee needs to demand code/data, a frozen hyperparameter protocol or validation split, a corrected abstract, and a benchmark that isn't entirely self-authored. As it stands, I wouldn't cite the numbers; I might cite the task formulation once it's cleaned up.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes U(PM)2, a training-free stereo polygon-matching pipeline. It first uses SAM to segment instances, vectorizes the masks into graph-structured polygons, then applies a global bidirectional-pyramid matcher (with LoFTR/SuperPoint/LightGlue features and epipolar constraints) followed by a local joint-geometry and multi-feature matcher (LoJoGM) solved by Hungarian assignment. The author-defined ACR, SAS, and MP metrics are used to report state-of-the-art polygon-matching accuracy on SceneFlow, ScanNet, ISPRS, and KITTI, and the paper claims to be the first effective direct polygon-matching method. It also mentions pose estimation and polygon cloud generation in the abstract, although these are not developed in the body.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would extend feature matching from points and lines to polygons in a modular, training-free way, and the ablation in Table 4 (ACR 89.02→14.21 without LoJoGM) suggests the local matcher makes a substantive contribution. The modular design and use of off-the-shelf components are also practically appealing. However, the effectiveness claim rests entirely on author-defined benchmarks, author-defined metrics, and hyperparameters selected on the test set; no code or data are provided. These validity issues must be resolved before the claimed SOTA results can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Appendix 4.2] The statement 'all hyperparameters used in our method are empirically determined based on test' is load-bearing. It means the reported numbers in Table 1—68.60% MP on SceneFlow and the 28-point margin over MESA—are post-selection optima, not the performance of a fixed method on unseen data. Baselines were not given the same test-set tuning. The paper needs a validation protocol (e.g., train/validation split, fixed defaults, or a held-out test set) and must report the sensitivity of the comparison to hyperparameter choices.
[Sec. 3.4, Appendix 3.1.3, Appendix 4.1] The benchmark is self-authored: GT generation uses hand-set weights (α, β, κ, δ, σ) and thresholds (λ, 0.3), and the metrics ACR/SAS/MP are defined by the authors. MP (Eq. 15) aggregates all matched polygons into one region before IoU, which can mask topological errors and reward over-coverage; SAS (Eq. 16) depends on an arbitrary scaling z=5. Without code/data or external validation, an independent reader cannot check whether the 32-point margin over MESA persists under standard evaluation practices. This directly undermines the 'SOTA' claim.
[Abstract vs. body] The paper title and abstract claim pose estimation and 'polygon cloud' as contributions, but the body contains no method, experiment, or results for either. The Conclusion mentions only polygon matching and future work on dynamic occlusions. The authors should either add the missing methodological and experimental support or remove/reframe these claims.
[Sec. 3.1, Sec. 3.2, Appendix Table 2] The pipeline depends on SAM providing view-consistent polygons: if SAM oversegments or undersegments differently in the two views, the graph input G (Eq. 1) is already inconsistent and the matcher cannot recover. Appendix Table 2 shows segmentation F1 varying from 0.66 (vit-l) to 0.79 (vit-h), and Sec. 3.2 concedes global matcher failure for local disparity inconsistency or texture similarity. The paper should quantify how often such failures occur and how much of the reported accuracy is attributable to SAM quality versus the matching modules.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Table 1] The abstract reports '68.60% matching area score,' but Table 1 and the text call this 'Matching Precision.' The terminology should be made consistent, and the abstract should not use a different metric name than the tables.
[Tables 1–4] Main-text tables are labeled 'Extended Data Table 1' etc. The numbering should be fixed to regular Table 1–4 with consistent caption style.
[Eq. (6)] The index notation in Eq. (6) is unclear: l = E(v_i,k)−1 in the denominator and l = i in the summation, with v_l undefined for l outside the vertex range. Please rewrite the definition of the node embedding more carefully.
[Sec. 4.4] Table 4 shows ACR dropping from 89.02 to 14.21 (about an 84% relative decrease), but the text says 'by approximately 80%.' Please update to the exact figure.
[Appendix 4.2] The symbol α is used both for the IoU weight in Eq. (4) and for the thresholds (0.8, 0.5, 0.4). This reuse is confusing; please use distinct symbols.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

SOTA claim is a post-selection number: hyperparameters are tuned on the test set, and the author-defined benchmark is the sole support for the headline comparison.

fitted input called prediction [Appendix 4.2 (Experimental Settings), supporting Table 1 and Sec. 4.2's 'optimal matching accuracy']
"We summarize the key hyperparameters used in our experiments as follows, and all hyperparameters used in our method are empirically determined based on test."

The headline claims—68.60% MP on SceneFlow in Table 1 and 'an optimal matching accuracy of 87.50% was achieved on the sceneﬂow dataset' in Sec. 4.2—are reported on the same test sets whose hyperparameters were selected. The main text also shows results at weights 5/6/7 and calls one value 'optimal', confirming test-set selection. The reported SOTA is therefore a post-selection optimum on the evaluation data, not a prediction of a fixed method on unseen data. Since no external polygon-matching benchmark exists, this tuned self-evaluation is the sole support for the 'first successful and effective attempt' conclusion, so the central empirical claim is forced by the tuning procedure.

full rationale

The pipeline itself is a genuine composition of independently pre-trained models (SAM, LoFTR, SuperPoint, LightGlue) with handcrafted geometric constraints; I found no load-bearing self-citation chain and no equation that reduces to its own input. The ground-truth generation (Appendix 3.1.3) and the new metrics ACR/SAS/MP are author-defined, which limits external falsifiability, but that alone is a benchmark-validity concern rather than a derivation-level circularity. The concrete circular/leakage step is Appendix 4.2: all method hyperparameters are empirically determined based on test, and the paper then reports those same test-set numbers as SOTA, even selecting an 'optimal' result across the tested weight values. The central empirical claim—a 32-point MP margin over MESA—is therefore a post-selection optimum on the data used for tuning, not an independent estimate of zero-shot generalization. The paper's admission that 'global matcher failure may occur' is a genuine limitation, not circularity. Overall, one central result is statistically forced by test-set tuning, so the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on a large set of hand-set hyperparameters (explicitly tuned on the test sets, Appendix 4.2), a self-designed GT generation procedure with author-chosen weights and thresholds, the assumption that SAM segmentations are consistent enough across both views to serve as polygon candidates, and the availability of camera poses/depth for GT projection (Eq. 11). The 'deep-spectral factor' is a purely internal heuristic, and the abstract-only 'polygon cloud' is asserted without definition or evaluation.

free parameters (9)

ξ (geometric similarity weight, Eq. 8) = 5/6/7 (swept)
Weight between area discrepancy and shape difference in ψ; appendix Table 1 sweeps 5/6/7 and results are reported at the best settings; explicitly tuned on test data.
k (shape-difference scaling, Eq. 8) = not reported
Scaling factor in exp(−k·β); no value given anywhere in the paper.
γ (deep-spectral threshold, Eq. 9) = 8
Threshold deciding whether to use geometric vs texture correlation; set in Appendix 4.2.
τ (pyramid search window, Algorithm 1) = 25
Top-level search window set in pseudocode; empirically chosen.
ϕ (template window size) = 15×15
Source polygon template window; stated in main text Sec. 4.1.
ε (epipolar band, Eq. 3) = not reported
Filtering band around the epipolar line; no value given.
ι (match threshold, Algorithm 2) = 5
Cost threshold for accepting a match; set in Appendix 4.2.
GT similarity weights α, β, κ, δ = α∈{0.4, 0.5, 0.8}; β=κ=(1−α)/8; δ=3(1−α)/4
Ground-truth generation (Appendix Eq. 4); the α thresholds mirror the evaluation thresholds MP40/50/80, coupling GT to the metric.
GT thresholds (0.3; λ=0.1; σ=40; z=5) = 0.3 / 0.1 / 40 / 5
Absolute similarity threshold, confidence margin, Gaussian sigma, and SAS scaling factor; all set in Appendix 4.2.

assumptions (6)

standard math Hungarian algorithm returns the globally minimal-cost one-to-one assignment
Used in LoJoGM (Sec. 3.3) to solve bipartite matching; assumed to yield the claimed optimal local matching.
domain assumption SAM masks provide stable, view-consistent polygon candidates in both stereo images
The detector's polygon set is entirely SAM output (Sec. 3.1); if segmentation differs between views, the graph structures (Eq. 1) cannot be matched. Appendix Table 2 shows matching F1 varies 0.66–0.79 with SAM size.
domain assumption Camera poses and depth are available to project polygon centers for ground truth (Eq. 11)
GT generation assumes accurate P0, P1, TR, TL, d; for ScanNet these come from SLAM poses, for SceneFlow from the synthetic renderer.
domain assumption MAGSAC++ robustly estimates F and H from initial LoFTR/SuperPoint matches
The initial matching module (Sec. 3.2) relies on it to 'fill the mismatches'; accuracy of the global search window depends on it.
ad hoc to paper The graph-node embedding in Eqs. (5)–(6) is a valid shape descriptor
Introduced without derivation; the formula as printed is malformed, making the axiom both unproven and unimplementable as written.
standard math Normalized cross-correlation is radiometrically invariant
Texture correlation (Sec. 3.3) assumes NCC handles large radiometric differences via linear invariance.

invented entities (3)

Polygon cloud
purpose: Claimed in the abstract as a new 3D representation produced by an 'optimal surface generation method' from matched polygons
Mentioned only in the abstract; never defined, derived, or evaluated in the full text. No falsifiable handle.
Deep-spectral factor χ (Eq. 4)
purpose: Internal heuristic counting keypoint matches inside a polygon pair, used to choose between geometric and texture correlation in the local matcher
A self-defined quantity used only inside the pipeline; no external validation and no independent benchmark.
ACR / SAS / MP evaluation metrics and their GT-generation scheme
purpose: Author the benchmark on which the paper then reports SOTA
Self-authored evaluation instruments with no external standard or inter-lab validation; the α thresholds used to build GT (40/50/80) match the MP evaluation thresholds, coupling the yardstick to the test.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Shot Polygon Matching with Pre-trained Models for Pose Estimation and Polygon Cloud from Challenging Stereo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7ZCVCN6

@misc{pith2026251105949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Shot Polygon Matching with Pre-trained Models for Pose Estimation and Polygon Cloud from Challenging Stereo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7ZCVCN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.05949}
}

read the original abstract

While stereo matching has achieved maturity for 0D point and 1D line primitives, establishing correspondences for 2D polygons remains largely unexplored due to challenges including disparity discontinuity, scale variation, training dependency, and poor generalization, limiting downstream tasks such as pose estimation and 3D reconstruction. To address these issues, we are the first to propose a Zero-shot Polygon Matching paradigm with Pre-trained Models (i.e., Z(PM)2), which combines learned features and handcrafted geometric constraints through plug-and-play modules, extending matching from 0D/1D primitives to 2D polygons. The pipeline comprises three core stages: Firstly, detector leverages the pre-trained segment anything model to vectorize segmentation masks into graph-structured polygons integrating geometry and texture; Secondly, global matcher uses bidirectional-pyramid and multi-geometric constraints to handle viewpoint variation; Thirdly, local matcher leverages local-holistic bipartite graph optimization to resolve disparity discontinuity and topological inconsistency. Moreover, we develop polygon-matching-guided pose estimation using correspondences to obtain well-distributed, low-redundancy homologous points, and pioneer the polygon cloud concept with an optimal surface generation method, producing structurally complete and semantically rich 3D representations beyond point and line clouds. Since no polygon matching methods from stereo imagery are available for direct comparison, we selected state-of-the-art (SoTA) methods close to this task as baselines. Extensive experiments on five challenging datasets (ISPRS, KITTI, ScanNet, SceneFlow, DTU) show Z(PM)2 achieves a 68.60% matching area score, outperforming MESA by approximately 32% and ranking first in area-level pose estimation, with competitive speed and strong zero-shot generalization without any training requirement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05949 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** U(PM)2 vs. MASA and MESA in visual comparison. The locations indicated by the rounded boxes are where the topological relationships have changed. MASA fails to detect polygons or areas because it was designed for different tasks. MESA achieves lower area overlap ratios and higher mismatch rates. In contrast, U(PM)2 attains the highest number of matches with the finest-grained accuracy (down to individual building-… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of U(PM)2 . 1) Detector jointly performs polygon and feature point detection from stereo images to construct polygons with graphic structure. 2) Global matcher matches feature points extracted by the Detector, establishing reliable correspondences and global geometric constraints. 3)Local matcher eliminates ambiguous matches through the geometry and multi-feature matching strategy to solve bipartite graph m… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Bidirectional-pyramid matching. The Bidirectional pyramid progressively narrows the search region from the top-level initial area toward lower levels to establish geometric constraints for subsequent local matching. Bidirectional-pyramid matching. To address the adapta…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The proposed Local Matcher. It addresses matching failures caused by local deformations and topological inconsistencies. The essential reason is the viewpoint variation causes disparity variation, then disparity variation in turn leads to topological inconsistency (e…

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Qualitative results on the ScanNet dataset. In the same column of images, the images in the upper and lower rows that are adjacent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png]

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Qualitative results on the SceneFlow dataset.In the same column of images, the images in the upper and lower rows that are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[2]

OmniGlue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance

Hanwen Jiang, Arjun Karpur, Bingyi Cao, Qixing Huang, and André Araujo. OmniGlue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19865–19875, 2024. 1

2024
[3]

Berg, Wan-Y en Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick

Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Y en Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Segment Anything, 2023. 1, 5 5

2023
[4]

Matching anything by segmenting anything

Siyuan Li, Lei Ke, Martin Danelljan, Luigi Piccinelli, Mattia Segu, Luc V an Gool, and Fisher Y u. Matching anything by segmenting anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18963–18973, 2024. 5

2024
[5]

LightGlue: Local feature matching at light speed

Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, and Marc Polle- feys. LightGlue: Local feature matching at light speed. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17627–17638, 2023. 1

2023
[6]

Isprs test project on urban classiﬁca- tion and 3D building reconstruction: Evaluation of building reconstruction results

Franz Rottensteiner. Isprs test project on urban classiﬁca- tion and 3D building reconstruction: Evaluation of building reconstruction results. Technical report, 2013. 5

2013
[7]

GIM: Learning generalizable image matcher from internet videos,

Xuelun Shen, Zhipeng Cai, Wei Yin, Matthias Müller, Zijun Li, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Cheng Wang. GIM: Learning generalizable image matcher from internet videos,
[8]

LoFTR: Detector-free local feature match- ing with transformers

Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Y uang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. LoFTR: Detector-free local feature match- ing with transformers. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 8918–8927, Nashville, TN, USA, 2021. IEEE. 1

2021
[9]

Qualitative results on the ScanNet dataset

Y unyang Xiong, Bala V aradarajan, Lemeng Wu, Xi- aoyu Xiang, Fanyi Xiao, Chenchen Zhu, Xiaoliang Dai, Dilin Wang, Fei Sun, Forrest Iandola, Raghuraman Krish- U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR MASA U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR MASA Figure 1. Qualitative results on...

arXiv 2023

Show all 10 references

[10]

DMESA: Densely matching everything by segmenting anything, 2024

Y esheng Zhang and Xu Zhao. DMESA: Densely matching everything by segmenting anything, 2024. 5

2024
[11]

MESA: Matching everything by segmenting anything

Y esheng Zhang and Xu Zhao. MESA: Matching everything by segmenting anything. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 20217–20226, Seattle, W A, USA, 2024. IEEE. 3, 5 U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR MASA Figure ...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

OmniGlue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance

Hanwen Jiang, Arjun Karpur, Bingyi Cao, Qixing Huang, and André Araujo. OmniGlue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19865–19875, 2024. 1

2024

[2] [3]

Berg, Wan-Y en Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick

Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Y en Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Segment Anything, 2023. 1, 5 5

2023

[3] [4]

Matching anything by segmenting anything

Siyuan Li, Lei Ke, Martin Danelljan, Luigi Piccinelli, Mattia Segu, Luc V an Gool, and Fisher Y u. Matching anything by segmenting anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18963–18973, 2024. 5

2024

[4] [5]

LightGlue: Local feature matching at light speed

Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, and Marc Polle- feys. LightGlue: Local feature matching at light speed. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17627–17638, 2023. 1

2023

[5] [6]

Isprs test project on urban classiﬁca- tion and 3D building reconstruction: Evaluation of building reconstruction results

Franz Rottensteiner. Isprs test project on urban classiﬁca- tion and 3D building reconstruction: Evaluation of building reconstruction results. Technical report, 2013. 5

2013

[6] [7]

GIM: Learning generalizable image matcher from internet videos,

Xuelun Shen, Zhipeng Cai, Wei Yin, Matthias Müller, Zijun Li, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Cheng Wang. GIM: Learning generalizable image matcher from internet videos,

[7] [8]

LoFTR: Detector-free local feature match- ing with transformers

Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Y uang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. LoFTR: Detector-free local feature match- ing with transformers. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 8918–8927, Nashville, TN, USA, 2021. IEEE. 1

2021

[8] [9]

Qualitative results on the ScanNet dataset

Y unyang Xiong, Bala V aradarajan, Lemeng Wu, Xi- aoyu Xiang, Fanyi Xiao, Chenchen Zhu, Xiaoliang Dai, Dilin Wang, Fei Sun, Forrest Iandola, Raghuraman Krish- U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR MASA U(PM) 2 superpoint+lightglue MESA SGAMU(PM) 2 LoFTR MASA Figure 1. Qualitative results on...

arXiv 2023