Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Cross-View Completion Models are Zero-shot Correspondence Estimators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a cross-view completion model's decoder cross-attention map already encodes dense geometric correspondence, and that reading it as a cost volume yields zero-shot matching that outperforms prior unsupervised baselines.

desk verdict The core observation is real: CroCo-v2's cross-attention maps are surprisingly good zero-shot correspondence estimators, but the paper overreaches on some SOTA claims and leaves a load-bearing component unspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09072 v1 pith:NF2YCBN6 submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CV

Honggyu An , Jinhyeon Kim , Seonghoon Park , Jaewoo Jung , Jisang Han , Sunghwan Hong , Seungryong Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cross-viewcompletioncross-attentionmapzero-shotdensematchinggeometriccorrespondencecostvolumeself-supervisedrepresentationlearningmulti-framedepthestimationreciprocity
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

Cross-view completion models are trained to reconstruct a masked target image from an unmasked source image, with no correspondence supervision. This paper argues that the decoder's cross-attention map, not the encoder or decoder feature descriptors that prior work has relied on, is where the learned geometric knowledge lives. Reading that map as a cost volume gives zero-shot dense matching with 9.41 average endpoint error on HPatches-240 and 12.72 on ETH3D, well below the best previous zero-shot baselines. The same map, equipped with light learnable heads, also produces competitive learned matching and multi-frame depth estimation. If correct, the result reframes cross-view completion as implicit self-supervised correspondence learning and tells downstream users to extract geometry from the attention map itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-attention map $C^l_{\mathrm{att}}(i,j)=\mathrm{softmax}(D^{l,Q}_t(i)\cdot D^{l,K}_s(j)/\sqrt{d})$ inside each decoder layer of a cross-view completion model: the attention distribution by which the decoder retrieves source patches to reconstruct the masked target. ZeroCo treats the layer-averaged map as a dense cost volume, enforces reciprocity by adding the transposed map computed from the swapped input pair, suppresses register-token artifacts by replacing those attention values with the minimum, and reads out flow by applying $\mathrm{softargmax}$. This map carries the correspondence signal; correlations of encoder or decoder features are broader, noisier, and match far worse.

What would settle it

Run the ZeroCo cost volume on image pairs with the same geometry but artificially decorrelated appearance, such as grayscale or strong color jitter on one view: if the cross-attention map's AEPE advantage over encoder and decoder correlations shrinks toward zero, the map is matching appearance rather than geometry, and the central claim fails. The paper's own resolution sweep already bounds the claim, since at 448x448 the advantage collapses to 186.73 AEPE from 35.39 at 224x224.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the geometric knowledge learned by cross-view completion lives in the decoder's cross-attention map, not in the encoder or decoder feature descriptors that earlier systems such as DUSt3R, MASt3R, and CroCo-flow have used. The argument rests on an analogy: the cross-view completion objective, which warps source features through a softmax attention distribution to reconstruct a masked target, is the same computation as self-supervised correspondence learning, where a cost volume is softmaxed into a matching distribution and used to warp the source view. The paper verifies this by comparing matching costs from encoder features, decoder features, and the cross-attention map, and the attention map is sharper, less noisy, and far more accurate. The resulting zero-shot procedure, ZeroCo, fuses the forward and swapped cross-attention maps and reaches 9.41 AEPE on HPatches-240 and 12.72 on ETH3D, compared with 26.14 and 25.69 for the best prior zero-shot baselines. With small learnable heads on top of the same map, the paper also reports competitive learned geometric matching and self-supervised multi-frame depth estimation on KITTI and Cityscapes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that CroCo-v2's reconstruction loss trained the decoder cross-attention to retrieve geometrically corresponding source patches rather than appearance-based lookalikes; if that premise fails, the zero-shot gains collapse on appearance-changing pairs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pretrained cross-view completion models can be used as zero-shot dense matchers by reading the cross-attention map as a cost volume and applying soft-argmax, with no training or fine-tuning.
  • Previous CVC-based systems that used encoder or decoder descriptors, such as DUSt3R and MASt3R, were built on the weaker signal; the paper's layer analysis implies that routing their matching through cross-attention maps would improve them.
  • The cross-attention cost volume can replace epipolar cost volumes in multi-frame depth estimation, improving robustness to dynamic objects and image noise while reaching 0.090 AbsRel on KITTI.
  • With a small learnable aggregation and upsampling head on top of the frozen map, learned matching reaches 13.61 AEPE on HPatches-Original and 2.88 on ETH3D, competitive with heavily pretrained baselines.
  • The zero-shot property is tied to the exact pretraining setup: it degrades sharply at 448 and 672 resolution and does not appear in CroCo-v1 cross-attention, so the result is specific to CroCo-v2-style training rather than a universal property of cross-attention.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the effect is sensitive to pretraining resolution and data scale, the natural next experiment is to pretrain cross-view completion at higher resolution and with harder viewpoint pairs; the paper's own resolution analysis predicts this would extend zero-shot matching to finer scales.
  • The reciprocal fusion of forward and swapped attention maps is a generic cycle-consistency mechanism that could be dropped into any cross-attention cost volume, including ones in models already trained with cross-view completion, without retraining.
  • A direct appearance-shortcut probe, such as grayscaling or color-jittering one view and watching the cross-attention AEPE, would separate geometric retrieval from appearance matching; the paper does not run this experiment.
  • The same reading of cross-attention as a cost volume may transfer to other two-view objectives, such as stereo or video frame prediction, where reconstruction pressure also forces retrieval of matching source regions.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the CroCo-v2 cross-view completion (CVC) model and argues that the cross-attention maps in its decoder encode dense geometric correspondence more effectively than the encoder or decoder features that prior work (e.g., DUSt3R, MASt3R, CroCo-Flow) has used. The authors propose ZeroCo, a zero-shot inference technique that averages cross-attention maps over decoder layers and enforces reciprocity by running the model on swapped input pairs; they also introduce learning-based variants (ZeroCo-finetuned, ZeroCo-flow, ZeroCo-depth) with lightweight heads for supervised geometric matching and multi-frame depth estimation. The paper reports large improvements over prior zero-shot matchers (DIFT, SD-DINO, DINOv2) on HPatches and ETH3D, and competitive results for learning-based matching and depth, with ablations supporting the use of cross-attention maps.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a previously underused signal in cross-view completion models: the decoder cross-attention map, rather than the descriptor features, is the carrier of geometric correspondence knowledge. The main strengths are the controlled comparisons on the same CroCo-v2 backbone (Tabs. 1, 2, 8), the genuinely frozen pretrained setting for the zero-shot experiments, and the large reported margins over existing zero-shot baselines (9.41 vs. 26.14 AEPE on HPatches-240). The paper also provides useful layer-wise and pretrained-weight analyses in the supplement. However, the significance is currently limited by two issues: the 'dense zoom-in' component that is necessary for the best zero-shot number is never specified, and the title/abstract claim about 'cross-view completion models' is broader than the evidence, which only supports a specific pretrained CroCo-v2 checkpoint at its native 224x224 resolution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5, Tab. 7, Supp. §A.1] The 'dense zoom-in' component is load-bearing for the headline zero-shot result but is never defined. Tab. 7 shows that without dense zoom-in the AEPE on HPatches-240 is 10.85 (row I) and with it the reported result is 9.41 (row VII); the main text only says that incorporating it 'significantly enhances zero-shot performance.' The supplementary material, including the zero-shot implementation details in Sec. A.1, does not describe the component: there is no algorithm, no resolution schedule, no statement of which tokens or layers it modifies, and no mention in Fig. 6. Because the paper's central claim is that the cross-attention map itself is a zero-shot correspondence estimator, the headline metric cannot be attributed to the geometric content of the cross-attention map unless this post-processing step is fully specified and ablated. This also prevents independent reproduction.
  2. [Supp. Tabs. 9 and 10, title/abstract] The paper's title and abstract claim a property of 'cross-view completion models' in general, but the evidence supports only CroCo-v2 at 224x224 resolution. Supp. Tab. 10 shows that for CroCo-v1, the cross-attention map (39.41 AEPE on HPatches-240) is actually worse than the encoder correlation (30.56), directly contradicting the general claim. Supp. Tab. 9 shows that ZeroCo degrades dramatically at higher input resolutions (35.39 AEPE at 224x224 vs. 186.73 at 448x448 on HPatches-Original). The authors acknowledge these facts in Sec. C.2-C.3, but the central claim is not correspondingly qualified. The paper should either restrict the claim to CroCo-v2 at its training resolution or provide evidence for a broader class of CVC models.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (7), Supp. §A.1] The 'zero-shot' claim should be qualified by the amount of benchmark-specific tuning in the inference procedure. The soft-argmax temperature (tau = 1e-4), the register-token replacement, and the dense zoom-in are all selected or validated on the HPatches-240 benchmark (Tab. 7, Supp. Tab. 11). While the model weights are frozen, the inference pipeline is not parameter-free; at minimum, the paper should state whether any components were tuned on the evaluation set and report sensitivity to tau and to the dense zoom-in configuration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) should specify the axis over which the softmax is computed; based on the text and Eq. (2), it is over source positions j, but this should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Tabs. 1 and 9] The label 'HPatches-Original' is misleading: Supp. Sec. A.1 states that all inputs are resized to 224x224 for the main experiments, and Tab. 9 confirms that the 'HPatches-Original' numbers at 224x224 match those in Tab. 1. Consider renaming the column to reflect the actual input resolution.
  3. [Supp. Tab. 12] The row label 'ZeroCo(ZeroCo-finetuned)' is unclear; it should be clarified whether this entry measures the zero-shot inference of the fine-tuned model or the full learning-based pipeline, since the memory/time values are close to the zero-shot 'ZeroCo' row.
  4. [§3.2] The register-token replacement procedure should specify how many register tokens are present in CroCo-v2, how they are identified across layers, and whether the 'minimum attention value' is computed per query or globally.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the zero-shot result is a forward pass of an externally pretrained CroCo-v2 evaluated on external benchmarks; the main claim does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The central claim is that the cross-attention map of CroCo-v2 is a better zero-shot correspondence cost volume than encoder/decoder correlations. The supporting numbers in Tabs. 1-2 are produced by a fixed, frozen pretrained network (CroCo-v2, [91]) evaluated on HPatches/ETH3D, with no learned parameters fitted to those benchmarks. The reciprocity fusion, register-token correction, and soft-argmax temperature are inference choices described by Eq. (7) and Sec. A.1; none of these is a fitted constant derived from the benchmark targets. The analogy in Sec. 3.1 between CVC and self-supervised matching is an interpretative claim, not a derivation: the paper does not define correspondence in terms of the cross-attention map, nor does it define the cross-attention map in terms of the AEPE metric. The cost-aggregation heads for the learning-based extensions cite the authors' earlier CATS/CATS++/CATSEG work [9-11], but this borrowing is architectural, standard, and not load-bearing for the zero-shot claim. One genuine gap is that the 'dense zoom-in' component that improves the headline HPatches-240 number (9.41 vs 10.85, Tab. 7 row VII) is never specified in the main text or supplement's zero-shot implementation details (Sec. A.1); this makes the exact 9.41 result hard to verify and partially attributes that number to an undisclosed post-process. That is a reproducibility and benchmark-selection concern, not circularity: the cross-attention-vs-descriptor comparison remains valid even without dense zoom-in (10.85 is still far below the 26.14 next-best), and no equation in the paper makes the reported AEPE equal to a fitted parameter by construction. Accordingly the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The zero-shot results derive their power from frozen CroCo-v2 weights and three hand-tuned inference choices (temperature, register correction, dense zoom-in). The learning-based extensions add trained heads with standard losses. Design choices are empirical and tuned on HPatches; they should be treated as commitments the method makes, not as parts of the discovery. No physics-like entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • soft-argmax temperature tau = 1e-4
    Hand-set in Supp. A.1 to sharpen flow extraction; no ablation is shown for the temperature value.
  • dense zoom-in configuration = not reported
    Introduced in Tab. 7 (row VII) and Tab. 11 as a notable improvement; details are absent, so any reimplementation must guess the setting.
  • layer averaging of cross-attention maps = all 12 layers
    Chosen after the layer-wise study in Supp. Tab. 8; not derived and appears benchmark-specific.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CroCo-v2 frozen weights at 224x224 provide a general source of geometric correspondences for unseen image pairs.
    ZeroCo does not train the backbone; if the attention maps overfit CroCo's pretraining distribution or resolution, generalization fails. See Sec. 4.1 and Supp. Tab. 9.
  • domain assumption Masked reconstruction of the target view from the source view induces geometrically meaningful attention rather than appearance matching.
    This is the 'analogy' in Sec. 3.1; it is tested indirectly by benchmarks but not proven.
  • domain assumption Register token attention is a shortcut artifact and can be removed by setting it to the minimum value.
    Applied in Sec. 3.2 based on registers literature [15,69]; no independent validation is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption Averaging pre-softmax query-key products and symmetrizing with swapped inputs yields an improved cost volume.
    Eq. 7 is justified only by ablations on HPatches-240; no theoretical derivation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-View Completion Models are Zero-shot Correspondence Estimators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NF2YCBN6

@misc{pith2026241209072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-View Completion Models are Zero-shot Correspondence Estimators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NF2YCBN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09072}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we explore new perspectives on cross-view completion learning by drawing an analogy to self-supervised correspondence learning. Through our analysis, we demonstrate that the cross-attention map within cross-view completion models captures correspondence more effectively than other correlations derived from encoder or decoder features. We verify the effectiveness of the cross-attention map by evaluating on both zero-shot matching and learning-based geometric matching and multi-frame depth estimation. Project page is available at https://cvlab-kaist.github.io/ZeroCo/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-view completion models [90, 91] are zero-shot correspondence estimators. Given a pair of images consisting of target (left) and source (right) images, we visualize the attended region in the source image corresponding to a query point marked in the target image in blue, where the point with the highest attention is marked in red. Although cross-view completion models [90, 91] are not trained with correspondenc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analogy of cross-view completion and self-supervised matching learning. The cost volume learned by (b) the cross￾attention layers within cross-view completion models [90, 91] closely resembles that of (a) traditional self-supervised matching methods [45, 55]. ing the similarity between these query and key features: C l att(i, j) = softmax(D l,Q t (i) · Dl,K s (j)/ √ d), (1) where l and softmax(·) denote the layer in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of matching costs. We visualize the matching costs of the (d) encoder, (e) decoder, and (f) cross-attention maps in the (a) cross-view completion model [90, 91]. The cross-attention exhibits the sharpest attention, while the encoder and decoder correlations exhibit broader attention, indicating that geometric cues are most effectively captured in the cross-attention maps. Connection to self-supervised … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the attention map with and without the register token. The initial cross-attention map of CroCo [91] often contains artifacts due to the register tokens as in (c). After correcting this, the proper attending point is identified as in (d). 3.2. Zero-sho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of matching costs in previous zero-shot matching methods [78, 97], encoder and decoder features within cross-view completion models, and our ZeroCo. Method Additional Test AbsRel↓ SqRel↓ RMSE↓ RMSElog↓ δ1↑ δ2↑ δ3↑ network frames Monodepth2 [27] - 1 0.115 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Main architecture for our learning-based experiments. (a) ZeroCo-flow and (b) ZeroCo-depth architectures extend the original zero-shot architecture by incorporating learnable heads, which consist of an aggregation and upsampling module, to effectively aggregate and ref…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of matching costs in previous zero-shot matching methods [78, 97], encoder and decoder features within cross-view completion models, and our ZeroCo. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of matching costs in previous zero-shot matching methods [78, 97], encoder and decoder features within cross-view completion models, and our ZeroCo. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of matching costs in previous zero-shot matching methods [78, 97], encoder and decoder features within cross-view completion models, and our ZeroCo. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of warped images using cross-attention maps. Based on our findings, we used the cross-attention maps from CroCo-v2 [91], DUSt3R [84], and MASt3R [51] to warp the source image to the respective target image, which shows the effectiveness of the cross-atte…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of warped images using cross-attention maps. Based on our findings, we used the cross-attention maps from CroCo-v2 [91], DUSt3R [84], and MASt3R [51] to warp the source image to the respective target image, which shows the effectiveness of the cross-atte…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization of warped images using estimated dense correspondence. We used the output flow from GLU-Net￾GOCor [79], PDCNet+ [82], DiffMatch [62], and our ZeroCo-flow to warp the source image to the respective target image. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative results for multi-frame depth estimation on the KITTI [25] dataset. We compare our ZeroCo-depth with multi￾view depth estimation models that leverage epipolar-based cost volumes [4, 89] and demonstrate improved depth prediction performance for dynamic obje…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative results for multi-frame depth estimation on the Cityscapes [14] dataset. We compare our ZeroCo-depth with multi-view depth estimation models that leverage epipolar-based cost volumes [24, 89] and demonstrate improved depth prediction performance for dynami…

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. Emergent Temporal Correspondences from Video Diffusion Transformers

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Video diffusion transformers encode temporal correspondences primarily in query-key similarities of a few specific attention layers, which can be extracted for zero-shot point tracking and used for training-free motio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Multimae: Multi-modal multi-task masked autoencoders

    Roman Bachmann, David Mizrahi, Andrei Atanov, and Amir Zamir. Multimae: Multi-modal multi-task masked autoencoders. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 348–367. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [2]

    Multi-view depth estimation by fusing single-view depth probability with multi-view geometry

    Gwangbin Bae, Ignas Budvytis, and Roberto Cipolla. Multi-view depth estimation by fusing single-view depth probability with multi-view geometry. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2842–2851, 2022. 3 9

    2022

  3. [3]

    Hpatches: A benchmark and evaluation of handcrafted and learned local descriptors

    Vassileios Balntas, Karel Lenc, Andrea Vedaldi, and Krys- tian Mikolajczyk. Hpatches: A benchmark and evaluation of handcrafted and learned local descriptors. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5173–5182, 2017. 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23

    2017

  4. [4]

    Dualrefine: Self-supervised depth and pose estima- tion through iterative epipolar sampling and refinement to- ward equilibrium

    Antyanta Bangunharcana, Ahmed Magd, and Kyung-Soo Kim. Dualrefine: Self-supervised depth and pose estima- tion through iterative epipolar sampling and refinement to- ward equilibrium. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 726–738, 2023. 3, 8, 9, 17, 31

    2023

  5. [5]

    Beit: Bert pre- training of image transformers

    Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, and Furu Wei. Beit: Bert pre- training of image transformers. arXiv, 2021. 3

    2021

  6. [6]

    Unsupervised learn- ing of visual features by contrasting cluster assignments

    Mathilde Caron, Ishan Misra, Julien Mairal, Priya Goyal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Unsupervised learn- ing of visual features by contrasting cluster assignments. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33: 9912–9924, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [7]

    Unsupervised monocular depth and ego-motion learning with structure and semantics

    Vincent Casser, Soeren Pirk, Reza Mahjourian, and Anelia Angelova. Unsupervised monocular depth and ego-motion learning with structure and semantics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 0–0, 2019. 23

    2019

  8. [8]

    Adaptive fusion of single-view and multi-view depth for autonomous driving

    Junda Cheng, Wei Yin, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, Shi- jie Wang, and Xin Yang. Adaptive fusion of single-view and multi-view depth for autonomous driving. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10138–10147, 2024. 3

    2024

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Cats: Cost aggregation transformers for visual correspondence

    Seokju Cho, Sunghwan Hong, Sangryul Jeon, Yunsung Lee, Kwanghoon Sohn, and Seungryong Kim. Cats: Cost aggregation transformers for visual correspondence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34: 9011–9023, 2021. 5, 33

    2021

  2. [10]

    Cats++: Boosting cost aggregation with convolutions and transformers

    Seokju Cho, Sunghwan Hong, and Seungryong Kim. Cats++: Boosting cost aggregation with convolutions and transformers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(6):7174–7194, 2022. 33

    2022

  3. [11]

    Cat- seg: Cost aggregation for open-vocabulary semantic seg- mentation

    Seokju Cho, Heeseong Shin, Sunghwan Hong, Anurag Arnab, Paul Hongsuck Seo, and Seungryong Kim. Cat- seg: Cost aggregation for open-vocabulary semantic seg- mentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4113– 4123, 2024. 5

    2024

  4. [12]

    Emerging property of masked token for effective pre-training

    Hyesong Choi, Hunsang Lee, Seyoung Joung, Hyejin Park, Jiyeong Kim, and Dongbo Min. Emerging property of masked token for effective pre-training. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision , pages 272–289. Springer,

  5. [13]

    Salience-based adaptive masking: re- visiting token dynamics for enhanced pre-training

    Hyesong Choi, Hyejin Park, Kwang Moo Yi, Sungmin Cha, and Dongbo Min. Salience-based adaptive masking: re- visiting token dynamics for enhanced pre-training. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision , pages 343–359. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  6. [14]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern re...

    2016

  7. [15]

    Vision transformers need registers

    Timoth ´ee Darcet, Maxime Oquab, Julien Mairal, and Pi- otr Bojanowski. Vision transformers need registers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16588, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 3, 6, 15, 16

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dkm: Dense kernelized feature matching for geometry estimation

    Johan Edstedt, Ioannis Athanasiadis, M ˚arten Wadenb¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. Dkm: Dense kernelized feature matching for geometry estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17765–17775, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  11. [19]

    Roma: Robust dense feature matching

    Johan Edstedt, Qiyu Sun, Georg B ¨okman, M ˚arten Wadenb¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. Roma: Robust dense feature matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 19790–19800, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  12. [20]

    Predicting depth, surface nor- mals and semantic labels with a common multi-scale con- volutional architecture

    David Eigen and Rob Fergus. Predicting depth, surface nor- mals and semantic labels with a common multi-scale con- volutional architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 2650–2658,

  13. [21]

    Probing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models

    Mohamed El Banani, Amit Raj, Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Abhishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Michael Rubinstein, Deqing Sun, Leonidas Guibas, Justin Johnson, and Varun Jampani. Probing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- si...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Single-view and multi-view depth fusion

    Jos ´e M F ´acil, Alejo Concha, Luis Montesano, and Javier Civera. Single-view and multi-view depth fusion. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(4):1994–2001, 2017. 3

    1994

  15. [23]

    Corrupted image modeling for self-supervised visual pre-training

    Yuxin Fang, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Xinggang Wang, and Furu Wei. Corrupted image modeling for self-supervised visual pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03382 ,

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Disentangling object motion and occlusion for unsupervised multi-frame monocular depth

    Ziyue Feng, Liang Yang, Longlong Jing, Haiyan Wang, YingLi Tian, and Bing Li. Disentangling object motion and occlusion for unsupervised multi-frame monocular depth. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 228–

  17. [25]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset.The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research, 32(11):1231–1237,

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset.The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research, 32(11):1231–1237,

  18. [26]

    Unsupervised monocular depth estimation with left- right consistency

    Cl ´ement Godard, Oisin Mac Aodha, and Gabriel J Bros- tow. Unsupervised monocular depth estimation with left- right consistency. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 270–279,

  19. [27]

    Digging into self-supervised monocular 10 depth estimation

    Cl ´ement Godard, Oisin Mac Aodha, Michael Firman, and Gabriel J Brostow. Digging into self-supervised monocular 10 depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 3828–3838,

  20. [28]

    Depth from videos in the wild: Unsupervised monocular depth learning from unknown cameras

    Ariel Gordon, Hanhan Li, Rico Jonschkowski, and Anelia Angelova. Depth from videos in the wild: Unsupervised monocular depth learning from unknown cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 8977–8986, 2019. 2, 23

    2019

  21. [29]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning

    Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altch ´e, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Do- ersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Advances in neur...

    2020

  22. [30]

    3d packing for self-supervised monocular depth estimation

    Vitor Guizilini, Rares Ambrus, Sudeep Pillai, Allan Raven- tos, and Adrien Gaidon. 3d packing for self-supervised monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2485–2494, 2020. 2, 8, 17

    2020

  23. [31]

    Geometric unsupervised domain adaptation for semantic segmentation

    Vitor Guizilini, Jie Li, Rares , Ambrus,, and Adrien Gaidon. Geometric unsupervised domain adaptation for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision , pages 8537–8547,

  24. [32]

    Multi-frame self-supervised depth with transformers

    Vitor Guizilini, Rares , Ambrus,, Dian Chen, Sergey Za- kharov, and Adrien Gaidon. Multi-frame self-supervised depth with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 160–170, 2022. 3, 5, 8, 17

    2022

  25. [33]

    Siamese masked autoencoders

    Agrim Gupta, Jiajun Wu, Jia Deng, and Fei-Fei Li. Siamese masked autoencoders. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:40676–40693, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  26. [34]

    Few-shot object de- tection with foundation models

    Guangxing Han and Ser-Nam Lim. Few-shot object de- tection with foundation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 28608–28618, 2024. 1

    2024

  27. [35]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 4

    2016

  28. [36]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 9729–9738, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  29. [37]

    Masked autoencoders are scal- able vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scal- able vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 16000–16009, 2022. 1, 2, 3

    2022

  30. [38]

    Ra-depth: Resolution adaptive self-supervised monocular depth estimation

    Mu He, Le Hui, Yikai Bian, Jian Ren, Jin Xie, and Jian Yang. Ra-depth: Resolution adaptive self-supervised monocular depth estimation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 565–581. Springer, 2022. 8, 17

    2022

  31. [39]

    Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mutual information

    Heiko Hirschmuller. Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mutual information. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 30(2):328–341,

  32. [40]

    Deep matching prior: Test-time optimization for dense correspondence

    Sunghwan Hong and Seungryong Kim. Deep matching prior: Test-time optimization for dense correspondence. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9907–9917, 2021. 7, 8

    2021

  33. [41]

    Cost aggregation with 4d convolutional swin transformer for few-shot segmentation

    Sunghwan Hong, Seokju Cho, Jisu Nam, Stephen Lin, and Seungryong Kim. Cost aggregation with 4d convolutional swin transformer for few-shot segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 108–126. Springer,

  34. [42]

    Neural matching fields: Implicit representation of matching fields for visual correspondence

    Sunghwan Hong, Jisu Nam, Seokju Cho, Susung Hong, Sangryul Jeon, Dongbo Min, and Seungryong Kim. Neural matching fields: Implicit representation of matching fields for visual correspondence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:13512–13526, 2022. 4

    2022

  35. [43]

    Unifying feature and cost aggregation with transformers for semantic and visual correspondence

    Sunghwan Hong, Seokju Cho, Seungryong Kim, and Stephen Lin. Unifying feature and cost aggregation with transformers for semantic and visual correspondence. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2024. 2, 4, 16

    2024

  36. [44]

    Self-supervised monocular trained depth estimation using self-attention and discrete disparity volume

    Adrian Johnston and Gustavo Carneiro. Self-supervised monocular trained depth estimation using self-attention and discrete disparity volume. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4756–4765, 2020. 2

    2020

  37. [45]

    Barron, Ariel Gordon, Kurt Konolige, and Anelia Angelova

    Rico Jonschkowski, Austin Stone, Jonathan T. Barron, Ariel Gordon, Kurt Konolige, and Anelia Angelova. What matters in unsupervised optical flow, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  38. [46]

    Re- purposing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation

    Bingxin Ke, Anton Obukhov, Shengyu Huang, Nando Met- zger, Rodrigo Caye Daudt, and Konrad Schindler. Re- purposing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 94...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Recurrent transformer net- works for semantic correspondence

    Seungryong Kim, Stephen Lin, Sang Ryul Jeon, Dongbo Min, and Kwanghoon Sohn. Recurrent transformer net- works for semantic correspondence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018. 5, 33

    2018

  40. [48]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 ,

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Cottereau, and Wei Tsang Ooi

    Lingdong Kong, Shaoyuan Xie, Hanjiang Hu, Lai Xing Ng, Benoit R. Cottereau, and Wei Tsang Ooi. Robodepth: Robust out-of-distribution depth estimation under corrup- tions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 2023. 6, 9, 18

    2023

  42. [50]

    Sfnet: Learning object-aware semantic correspon- dence

    Junghyup Lee, Dohyung Kim, Jean Ponce, and Bumsub Ham. Sfnet: Learning object-aware semantic correspon- dence. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2278– 2287, 2019. 15

    2019

  43. [51]

    Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J ´erˆome Revaud. Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09756, 2024. 2, 4, 7, 8, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Unsupervised monocular depth learn- ing in dynamic scenes

    Hanhan Li, Ariel Gordon, Hang Zhao, Vincent Casser, and Anelia Angelova. Unsupervised monocular depth learn- ing in dynamic scenes. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1908–1917. PMLR, 2021. 2, 23 11

    1908

  45. [53]

    Learning to fuse monocular and multi-view cues for multi- frame depth estimation in dynamic scenes

    Rui Li, Dong Gong, Wei Yin, Hao Chen, Yu Zhu, Kaix- uan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, Jinqiu Sun, and Yanning Zhang. Learning to fuse monocular and multi-view cues for multi- frame depth estimation in dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- ...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Megadepth: Learning single-view depth prediction from internet photos

    Zhengqi Li and Noah Snavely. Megadepth: Learning single-view depth prediction from internet photos. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2041–2050, 2018. 16, 17

    2018

  47. [55]

    Self- low: Self-supervised learning of optical flow

    Pengpeng Liu, Michael Lyu, Irwin King, and Jia Xu. Self- low: Self-supervised learning of optical flow. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4571–4580, 2019. 2, 3

    2019

  48. [56]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 15

    2021

  49. [57]

    Flowdiffuser: Advancing optical flow estimation with diffusion models

    Ao Luo, Xin Li, Fan Yang, Jiangyu Liu, Haoqiang Fan, and Shuaicheng Liu. Flowdiffuser: Advancing optical flow estimation with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19167–19176, 2024. 1

    2024

  50. [58]

    Unflow: Un- supervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional cen- sus loss

    Simon Meister, Junhwa Hur, and Stefan Roth. Unflow: Un- supervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional cen- sus loss. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2018. 2

    2018

  51. [59]

    Dgc-net: Dense geometric correspondence network

    Iaroslav Melekhov, Aleksei Tiulpin, Torsten Sattler, Marc Pollefeys, Esa Rahtu, and Juho Kannala. Dgc-net: Dense geometric correspondence network. In 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 1034–1042. IEEE, 2019. 2, 6, 7

    2019

  52. [60]

    Hypercorrela- tion squeeze for few-shot segmentation

    Juhong Min, Dahyun Kang, and Minsu Cho. Hypercorrela- tion squeeze for few-shot segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), 2021. 16

    2021

  53. [61]

    Efficientps: Efficient panoptic segmentation

    Rohit Mohan and Abhinav Valada. Efficientps: Efficient panoptic segmentation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 129(5):1551–1579, 2021. 18

    2021

  54. [62]

    Diffusion model for dense matching

    Jisu Nam, Gyuseong Lee, Sunwoo Kim, Hyeonsu Kim, Hyoungwon Cho, Seyeon Kim, and Seungryong Kim. Diffusion model for dense matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19094, 2023. 7, 8, 16, 17, 30

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Theo Moutakanni, Huy V . V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernan- dez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Hu Xu, Vasu Sharma, Shang-Wen Li, Wojciech Galuba, Mike Rabbat, Mido Ass- ran, N...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Al- ban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. 2017. 16

    2017

  57. [65]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32,

  58. [66]

    Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting

    Deepak Pathak, Philipp Krahenbuhl, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Alexei A Efros. Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2536–2544, 2016. 3

    2016

  59. [67]

    Don’t forget the past: Recurrent depth esti- mation from monocular video

    Vaishakh Patil, Wouter Van Gansbeke, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Don’t forget the past: Recurrent depth esti- mation from monocular video. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, 5(4):6813–6820, 2020. 8, 17

    2020

  60. [68]

    Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation

    Luigi Piccinelli, Yung-Hsu Yang, Christos Sakaridis, Mat- tia Segu, Siyuan Li, Luc Van Gool, and Fisher Yu. Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition , pages 10106–10116, 2024. 3

    2024

  61. [69]

    Movie gen: A cast of media foundation models

    Adam Polyak, Amit Zohar, Andrew Brown, Andros Tjan- dra, Animesh Sinha, Ann Lee, Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Chih-Yao Ma, Ching-Yao Chuang, et al. Movie gen: A cast of media foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13720, 2024. 5

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    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, 16

    2021

  63. [71]

    Unsupervised deep learning for optical flow estimation

    Zhe Ren, Junchi Yan, Bingbing Ni, Bin Liu, Xiaokang Yang, and Hongyuan Zha. Unsupervised deep learning for optical flow estimation. In Proceedings of the AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, 2017. 2

    2017

  64. [72]

    Sacreg: Scene-agnostic co- ordinate regression for visual localization

    Jerome Revaud, Yohann Cabon, Romain Br ´egier, JongMin Lee, and Philippe Weinzaepfel. Sacreg: Scene-agnostic co- ordinate regression for visual localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 688–698, 2024. 1, 9

    2024

  65. [73]

    Neighbourhood consensus networks

    Ignacio Rocco, Mircea Cimpoi, Relja Arandjelovi ´c, Aki- hiko Torii, Tomas Pajdla, and Josef Sivic. Neighbourhood consensus networks. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 31, 2018. 5

    2018

  66. [74]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 6

    2022

  67. [75]

    Attention meets geometry: Geom- etry guided spatial-temporal attention for consistent self- supervised monocular depth estimation

    Patrick Ruhkamp, Daoyi Gao, Hanzhi Chen, Nassir Navab, and Beniamin Busam. Attention meets geometry: Geom- etry guided spatial-temporal attention for consistent self- supervised monocular depth estimation. In 2021 Inter- national Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 837–847. ...

    2021

  68. [76]

    A multi-view stereo benchmark with high- 12 resolution images and multi-camera videos

    Thomas Schops, Johannes L Schonberger, Silvano Galliani, Torsten Sattler, Konrad Schindler, Marc Pollefeys, and An- dreas Geiger. A multi-view stereo benchmark with high- 12 resolution images and multi-camera videos. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision a...

    2017

  69. [77]

    Ransac-flow: generic two-stage image alignment

    Xi Shen, Franc ¸ois Darmon, Alexei A Efros, and Mathieu Aubry. Ransac-flow: generic two-stage image alignment. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Confer- ence, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, pages 618–637. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  70. [78]

    Emergent correspondence from image diffusion

    Luming Tang, Menglin Jia, Qianqian Wang, Cheng Perng Phoo, and Bharath Hariharan. Emergent correspondence from image diffusion. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36:1363–1389, 2023. 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27

    2023

  71. [79]

    Gocor: Bringing globally optimized correspon- dence volumes into your neural network

    Prune Truong, Martin Danelljan, Luc V Gool, and Radu Timofte. Gocor: Bringing globally optimized correspon- dence volumes into your neural network. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:14278–14290,

  72. [80]

    Glu- net: Global-local universal network for dense flow and cor- respondences

    Prune Truong, Martin Danelljan, and Radu Timofte. Glu- net: Global-local universal network for dense flow and cor- respondences. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 6258– 6268, 2020. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17

    2020

  73. [81]

    Learning accurate dense correspondences and when to trust them

    Prune Truong, Martin Danelljan, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Learning accurate dense correspondences and when to trust them. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5714–5724, 2021. 3, 7, 16, 17

    2021

  74. [82]

    Pdc-net+: Enhanced probabilistic dense corre- spondence network

    Prune Truong, Martin Danelljan, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Pdc-net+: Enhanced probabilistic dense corre- spondence network. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(8):10247–10266, 2023. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 30

    2023

  75. [83]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. 4, 6, 15, 16

    2017

  76. [84]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20697–20709, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29

    2024

  77. [85]

    Crafting monocular cues and velocity guidance for self-supervised multi-frame depth learning

    Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Xu Chi, Yun Ye, Ziwei Chen, and Xingang Wang. Crafting monocular cues and velocity guidance for self-supervised multi-frame depth learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2689–2697, 2023. 3, 8, 17

    2023

  78. [86]

    Unos: Unified unsupervised optical- flow and stereo-depth estimation by watching videos

    Yang Wang, Peng Wang, Zhenheng Yang, Chenxu Luo, Yi Yang, and Wei Xu. Unos: Unified unsupervised optical- flow and stereo-depth estimation by watching videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition , pages 8071–8081, 2019. 2, 4

    2019

  79. [87]

    Sea-raft: Simple, efficient, accurate raft for optical flow

    Yihan Wang, Lahav Lipson, and Jia Deng. Sea-raft: Simple, efficient, accurate raft for optical flow. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 36–54. Springer, 2025. 1

    2025

  80. [88]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image pro- cessing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 2, 4

    2004

  81. [89]

    The temporal opportunist: Self-supervised multi-frame monocular depth

    Jamie Watson, Oisin Mac Aodha, Victor Prisacariu, Gabriel Brostow, and Michael Firman. The temporal opportunist: Self-supervised multi-frame monocular depth. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1164–1174, 2021. 2, 3, 5,...

    2021

  82. [90]

    Croco: Self-supervised pre-training for 3d vision tasks by cross-view completion

    Philippe Weinzaepfel, Vincent Leroy, Thomas Lucas, Ro- main Br´egier, Yohann Cabon, Vaibhav Arora, Leonid Ants- feld, Boris Chidlovskii, Gabriela Csurka, and J ´erˆome Re- vaud. Croco: Self-supervised pre-training for 3d vision tasks by cross-view completion. Advances in Neura...

    2022

  83. [91]

    Croco v2: Improved cross-view completion pre- training for stereo matching and optical flow

    Philippe Weinzaepfel, Thomas Lucas, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Vaibhav Arora, Romain Br ´egier, Gabriela Csurka, Leonid Antsfeld, Boris Chidlovskii, and J ´erˆome Revaud. Croco v2: Improved cross-view completion pre- training for stereo matching and optical flow. In Proceed-...

    2023

  84. [92]

    Gmflow: Learning optical flow via global matching

    Haofei Xu, Jing Zhang, Jianfei Cai, Hamid Rezatofighi, and Dacheng Tao. Gmflow: Learning optical flow via global matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8121–8130,

  85. [93]

    Depth anything: Un- leashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Ji- ashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Un- leashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10371–10381, 2024. 3

    2024

  86. [94]

    Mvs2d: Efficient multi-view stereo via attention-driven 2d convolutions

    Zhenpei Yang, Zhile Ren, Qi Shan, and Qixing Huang. Mvs2d: Efficient multi-view stereo via attention-driven 2d convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 8574– 8584, 2022. 3

    2022

  87. [95]

    Met- ric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a sin- gle image

    Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Hao Chen, Zhipeng Cai, Gang Yu, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Chunhua Shen. Met- ric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a sin- gle image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9043–9053, 2023. 3

    2023

  88. [96]

    Back to basics: Unsupervised learning of optical flow via brightness constancy and motion smoothness

    Jason J Yu, Adam W Harley, and Konstantinos G Derpanis. Back to basics: Unsupervised learning of optical flow via brightness constancy and motion smoothness. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Nether- lands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part I...

    2016

  89. [97]

    A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements dino for zero-shot semantic correspondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Luisa Pola- nia Cabrera, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements dino for zero-shot semantic correspondence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 6, ...

    2024

  90. [98]

    Monovit: Self-supervised monocular depth estimation with a vision transformer

    Chaoqiang Zhao, Youmin Zhang, Matteo Poggi, Fabio Tosi, Xianda Guo, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Yang Tang, and 13 Stefano Mattoccia. Monovit: Self-supervised monocular depth estimation with a vision transformer. In 2022 inter- national conference on 3D vision (3DV) , pages 668–678....

    2022

  91. [99]

    Unsupervised learning of depth and ego- motion from video

    Tinghui Zhou, Matthew Brown, Noah Snavely, and David G Lowe. Unsupervised learning of depth and ego- motion from video. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1851– 1858, 2017. 6

    2017

  92. [100]

    A survey on open- vocabulary detection and segmentation: Past, present, and future

    Chaoyang Zhu and Long Chen. A survey on open- vocabulary detection and segmentation: Past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 1 14 Cross-View Completion Models are Zero-shot Correspondence Estimators - Supplementary Mater...

    2024

  93. [244]

    3, 8, 9, 17, 18, 23, 32

    Springer, 2022. 3, 8, 9, 17, 18, 23, 32

    2022

  94. [2013]

    6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22, 24, 31

  95. [2019]

    6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.