Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Not all Views are Created Equal: Analyzing Viewpoint Instabilities in Vision Foundation Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Vision foundation models all share a weakness at accidental viewpoints, and failures there are predictable from features alone.

desk verdict A genuinely useful expansion of viewpoint-instability analysis to nine foundation models, but the label definition is confounded by uncontrolled lighting and the prediction claim is more circular than it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19920 v1 pith:OZSDOEZW submitted 2024-12-27 cs.CV

Mateusz Michalkiewicz , Sheena Bai , Mahsa Baktashmotlagh , Varun Jampani , Guha Balakrishnan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords viewpointstabilityvisionfoundationmodelsaccidentalviewpointsout-of-distributionfeaturerobustness3DreasoningCLIPDINOv2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This study asks whether the vision foundation models now used to embed images are stable under changes in camera viewpoint, and finds that they are not uniformly stable. It defines instability as a large change in a model's feature vector when the viewing angle is perturbed slightly, and shows that across nine models the same geometric 'accidental' viewpoints—camera angles that hide an object's true 3D structure—tend to be unstable, while views that are merely out-of-distribution differ from model to model. The paper proposes that unstable views can be recognized and classified from the feature vector alone, without looking at the image, and demonstrates that classification, visual question answering, and monocular 3D reconstruction all lose accuracy at such viewpoints. The care a reader should take from this is that viewpoint-dependent failures are not random noise: they follow geometry and model bias, and can be anticipated in advance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the viewpoint-instability score of Eq. 1: for a view $v_i$, take the average cosine distance in feature space between $f(v_i)$ and the features of all camera views within a small neighbourhood radius $r$, and call the view unstable when this average exceeds a threshold $\tau$ (set to the 97th percentile of per-model scores). On top of that score the paper builds two tools: an RBF kernel SVM that predicts the stable/unstable label from a single image's feature vector without seeing neighbouring views, and a $k=2$ clustering of unstable features (assigned by silhouette score) that separates accidental from OOD viewpoints. Accidental viewpoints are the key geometric concept: camera orientations that collapse an object to a 1D or 2D silhouette and thereby obscure its true structure.

What would settle it

Recompute the instability labels while varying the neighborhood radius $r$ over a plausible range and setting the threshold at the 90th and 99th percentiles rather than the 97th; if the SVM stable/unstable accuracies and the accidental-OOD cluster assignments in Tables 1-3 change materially, the feature-only predictability result is an artifact of the chosen cutoffs, and if they barely change, the claim is robust to the hyperparameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that viewpoint instability in vision foundation models is real, predictable, and structured. Using nine featurizers (CLIP, DINO, DINOv2, ConvNeXt, DeiT III, DreamSim, MAE, SAM, SigLip) on two multi-view datasets (ABO and CO3D), it labels views as unstable when small camera perturbations produce large feature changes, and then shows that a classifier can separate stable from unstable views using only the feature vector, with accuracies of 81-96% on ABO and 71-77% on CO3D. The unstable views split into two subtypes: accidental viewpoints, where the camera angle hides the object's true 3D structure, and out-of-distribution (OOD) viewpoints, which are rare or unseen in training. The paper finds that all nine models largely agree on which views are accidental, but agree almost not at all on which views are OOD (mean IoU 0.12), and that downstream accuracy falls off sharply at both kinds of unstable views—most dramatically at accidental viewpoints.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis inherits its definition of 'unstable' from Eq. 1, which depends on a neighborhood radius $r$ that is never reported and on a threshold fixed at the 97th percentile of each model's instability scores; if those two choices were changed, the set of views labeled unstable would change, and every classification and downstream result would move with them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployed system could flag a view as untrustworthy at inference time using only the model's own feature vector, before committing to a classification, caption, or reconstruction.
  • Because accidental viewpoints are shared across featurizers, failures at these views should be expected in any current vision foundation model, not treated as a quirk of one architecture.
  • Because OOD viewpoints are largely model-specific, robustness claims about unusual views cannot be transferred from one model to another and need per-model evaluation.
  • Downstream models that rely on a backbone (VQA and monocular reconstruction in this study) inherit the backbone's viewpoint instability, so improving the backbone's feature stability should improve the downstream task.
  • The feature-only separability of stable and unstable views means instability can be studied without storing or transmitting the input images, which matters for privacy-sensitive applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same feature-only instability detector could be repurposed as a confidence measure for high-stakes uses of vision-language models, since a single forward pass would already reveal whether a view is likely to mislead the model.
  • Editorial inference: the tight clustering of accidental viewpoints across models hints that a small set of geometric augmentations targeting those orientations—rather than exhaustive viewpoint augmentation—might close most of the stability gap.
  • Editorial inference: the central comparisons all depend on the 97th-percentile threshold and the unreported neighbourhood radius $r$; a reader wanting to rely on the quantitative claims should test whether the reported accuracies are stable when these two hyperparameters are varied.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a definition of viewpoint instability for vision foundation models, computed as the mean cosine-distance change in feature embeddings over small camera-perturbation neighborhoods (Eq. 1). It labels viewpoints as stable or unstable using a per-model 97th-percentile threshold, clusters the unstable points into accidental and OOD subtypes via k-means and silhouette scores, and evaluates the resulting labels in SVM prediction experiments and three downstream tasks (zero-shot and linear-probe classification, VQA, and monocular 3D reconstruction) on the ABO and CO3D datasets. The central findings are that unstable viewpoints are largely separable from stable ones in feature space, that models agree on accidental viewpoints but disagree on OOD viewpoints, and that downstream performance degrades at both unstable subtypes.

Significance. The paper is useful in scope and breadth: it studies nine featurizers, two datasets, and three downstream tasks, and it includes a human-annotation sanity check for accidental viewpoints. The proposed instability score is simple and reproducible, and the finding that accidental viewpoints produce consistent feature collapse across architectures, while OOD viewpoints are model-specific, is potentially valuable for model auditing and for designing viewpoint-robust representations. However, the strength of these conclusions is currently limited by unresolved sensitivity to the definition's free parameters and by confounding factors, so the paper is a promising framework rather than a definitive characterization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. 1; Sec. 3.3] The neighborhood radius r in Eq. 1 is never reported, and the instability threshold τ is set to the 97th percentile of per-model instability scores in Sec. 3.3. Since every subsequent experiment reuses these binary labels, the SVM accuracies, k-means subtypes, IoU agreement numbers, and downstream performance gaps all inherit whatever sensitivity Eq. 1 has to r and τ. The paper should report r, justify the choice of τ, and include an ablation that varies r and τ and recomputes Table 1 and the IoU statistics.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.1 vs. Sec. 3.2] The ABO Spins renderings are described as having varying lighting conditions, but the viewpoint distance dv in Eq. 1 encodes only 3D position and angle. Cosine distances in Eq. 1 therefore mix lighting-induced feature changes with viewpoint-induced changes, and because τ is fit per model and dataset, the unstable labels may partly reflect illumination rather than viewpoint geometry. The authors should either constrain the neighbor set to renderings with fixed lighting, include lighting in dv, or provide a lighting-controlled control experiment to show that the instability scores are not dominated by non-viewpoint factors.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Table 1] The SVM prediction experiment is partly circular: the ground-truth stable/unstable labels are defined by feature distances in f (Eq. 1), and the same f provides the SVM input features. Figure 4 shows that unstable points form clusters in that space, so high accuracies in Table 1 may largely reflect the label-generating geometry rather than a semantically meaningful property. A stronger test would train the SVM on labels from one featurizer and evaluate on another featurizer's input features, or use the human-annotated labels as ground truth.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 4] The accidental/OOD split is obtained by k-means with k=2 and by assigning the cluster with the highest silhouette score to accidental; this heuristic is not anchored to any geometric definition of accidental viewpoints. The human-overlap result (78.3%) is only moderate, and treating all unstable views as accidental raises agreement to 89.8%, which weakens the claim that the subtype separation is meaningful. The paper should validate the clustering against an independent criterion, such as camera elevation aligned with an object's degenerate dimension, rather than relying on silhouette alone.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1.2] There is a typo in 'paramters' and a duplicated 'parameters.' in the SAM entry; these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The text defines Nv(vi, r) but the following sentence refers to N(vi, τ); the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption reads 'datasetWe' and is missing a period; please fix the spacing and punctuation.
  4. [Sec. 3.4.4] The text refers to 'Figures 8' while there is only one Figure 8, and the model name is inconsistently written as 'Stable Fast3D' versus the reference 'SF3D'; please harmonize.
  5. [Table 3] MAE reports the same Stable accuracy of 93.97% on both ABO and CO3D; please verify whether this is a copy/paste error.
  6. [Sec. 3.3] The SVM RBF hyperparameters (C, gamma), the non-maximal suppression details, and the exact number of scenes used per dataset are not reported, which prevents replication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the instability analysis is empirically self-contained, with only minor self-referential framing in the feature-based SVM prediction and non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on operational definitions (Eq. 1) and empirical measurements rather than on a derivation chain that returns to its inputs. The instability score is defined as the average cosine distance between a view's features and those of nearby views; the SVM in Sec. 3.3 uses the same feature vector f(vi) to predict the binary label derived from Eq. 1. This is self-referential in that the label is partially a function of the input feature, but it is not circular by construction: the label also depends on neighbor features f(u) that are not provided to the classifier, so the reported 71-96% accuracies are non-trivial empirical results about feature-space geometry. The accidental/OOD subdivision is validated against 1,000 human accidental labels (78.3% average overlap), providing external grounding. Downstream performance gaps at unstable viewpoints are empirical correlations, not logical consequences of the definition, since a feature can be an outlier relative to neighboring views and still classify or reconstruct correctly. The paper's self-citations ([3] SF3D, [16] 3D-awareness probing) are used as a downstream tool and contextual comparison, respectively, and are not load-bearing premises. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The lighting/occlusion confound raised by the skeptic is a validity concern about the datasets, not a circularity in the argument. Overall, the analysis is self-contained and externally anchored, warranting a low circularity score.

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

The paper's conclusions depend on several choices made by the authors: the instability metric and its threshold, the clustering heuristic, and the assumption that occlusion/blur instability in CO3D is the same phenomenon as geometric accidental viewpoints. None of these are derived from first principles, and some are not fully specified.

free parameters (4)
  • Instability threshold τ = 97th percentile of per-featurizer instability scores
    Determines which viewpoints are labeled unstable; set to the 97th percentile of the distribution of ins_f scores, so exactly 3% of viewpoints are always labeled unstable per featurizer/dataset (Sec 3.3).
  • Neighborhood radius r = not reported
    Controls the set of neighbor viewpoints in Eq. 1 used to compute instability scores; never specified in the paper, making the ground truth irreproducible (Sec 3.2).
  • Number of clusters k = 2
    Used to separate accidental from OOD unstable viewpoints; chosen by the authors based on visual inspection (Sec 3.3).
  • SVM RBF hyperparameters (C, gamma) = not reported
    For the SVM classifiers in Sec 3.3; no values are given, so a re-implementation cannot match exactly.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cosine distance between feature vectors is the right measure of feature change.
    Used throughout Eq. 1 and all analyses; other distances might yield different instability labels.
  • domain assumption The 97th percentile threshold yields a meaningful stable/unstable split.
    No sensitivity analysis is provided; the choice determines the labels for all downstream evaluations.
  • ad hoc to paper k-means with k=2 and choosing the cluster with the highest silhouette score identifies accidental viewpoints.
    This heuristic is introduced specifically for this paper; it is not derived from theory and is validated only post hoc against a small human-annotated set.
  • domain assumption Unstable viewpoints in CO3D caused by occlusion or blur are the same phenomenon as geometric accidental viewpoints.
    The paper groups these together as 'accidental' for CO3D, but occlusion and blur are not the same as camera orientation hiding 3D structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Not all Views are Created Equal: Analyzing Viewpoint Instabilities in Vision Foundation Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZSDOEZW

@misc{pith2026241219920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Not all Views are Created Equal: Analyzing Viewpoint Instabilities in Vision Foundation Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZSDOEZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19920}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we analyze the viewpoint stability of foundational models - specifically, their sensitivity to changes in viewpoint- and define instability as significant feature variations resulting from minor changes in viewing angle, leading to generalization gaps in 3D reasoning tasks. We investigate nine foundational models, focusing on their responses to viewpoint changes, including the often-overlooked accidental viewpoints where specific camera orientations obscure an object's true 3D structure. Our methodology enables recognizing and classifying out-of-distribution (OOD), accidental, and stable viewpoints using feature representations alone, without accessing the actual images. Our findings indicate that while foundation models consistently encode accidental viewpoints, they vary in their interpretation of OOD viewpoints due to inherent biases, at times leading to object misclassifications based on geometric resemblance. Through quantitative and qualitative evaluations on three downstream tasks - classification, VQA, and 3D reconstruction - we illustrate the impact of viewpoint instability and underscore the importance of feature robustness across diverse viewing conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Viewpoint stability of a featurizer. The blue camera represent small perturbations in camera space that result in cor￾respondingly small changes in a feature space of a featurization function, indicating a stable viewpoint. In contrast, the red cam￾era represent small perturbations in camera space that lead to large changes in feature space, signifying an unstable viewpoint. ticularly related to 3D reasoning [16, 46… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Instability scores of CLIP [37] features with respect to viewpoints for three scenes in the ABO [10] dataset. (Left) a wooden side table with no instabilities. (Center) a painting with two accidental viewpoints, where the structure of the painting is hidden due to viewpoint. (Right) High-back cushion with an uncommon (OOD) viewpoint. 3. Experimental Analysis We present various analyses of foundation models with re￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of accidental and OOD viewpoints using CLIP and DINO embeddings across the ABO and CO3D datasets. Accidental views obscure object’s true structure, while OOD views present uncommon orientations rarely or never seen during training. In the CO3D dataset, additional sources of instability include occlusions, image blur, and objects displayed upside down [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PCA visualization of stable (blue), unstable￾accidental (green), and unstable-OOD (red) viewpoints using CLIP embeddings from ABO dataset We see that unstable view￾points generally cluster in feature space, with accidental view￾points tightly grouped together. Please r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Percentage of generated captions achieving an F1 score above 0.5 (F1@0.5) (higher is better) for stable, OOD, and accidental viewpoints on the ABO dataset. The F1 score is calculated using BERTScore between generated captions and ground truth (GT) captions, where GT ca…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percentage of reconstructed 3D models achieving an F1 score above 0.5 (F1@0.5) (higher is better) for stable, OOD, and accidental viewpoints on the ABO dataset. The F1 score, calculated between reconstructed models and ground truth (GT) models, indicates that reconstru…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of generated captions for stable, OOD, and accidental viewpoints using LLaVA-1.5 [27] (CLIP [37] backbone). Captions for stable viewpoints are factual, while those for accidental and OOD viewpoints often contain inaccuracies. Here, an accidental viewpoint caus…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Single-view reconstruction results for stable and unstable viewpoints from the ABO dataset, using Stable Fast 3D [3] with DINOv2 [34] as the image featurizer. Stable viewpoints yield reconstructions with accurate geometry, while accidental and OOD viewpoints lead to di…

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. MSG-Loc: Multi-Label Likelihood-based Semantic Graph Matching for Object-Level Global Localization

    cs.RO 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Object-level global localization becomes more robust to semantic ambiguity by matching multi-label confidence distributions and propagating neighbor likelihoods across semantic graphs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Strike (with) a pose: Neural networks are easily fooled by strange poses of familiar objects

    Michael A Alcorn, Qi Li, Zhitao Gong, Chengfei Wang, Long Mai, Wei-Shinn Ku, and Anh Nguyen. Strike (with) a pose: Neural networks are easily fooled by strange poses of familiar objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4845–4854, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding

    Irving Biederman. Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological review, 94(2): 115, 1987. 2

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Sf3d: Stable fast 3d mesh reconstruction with uv-unwrapping and illumination disentanglement

    Mark Boss, Zixuan Huang, Aaryaman Vasishta, and Varun Jampani. Sf3d: Stable fast 3d mesh reconstruction with uv-unwrapping and illumination disentanglement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00653, 2024. 7, 8

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  5. [5]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Cnnˆ{2}: View- point generalization via a binocular vision.Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    Wei-Da Chen and Shan-Hung Brandon Wu. Cnnˆ{2}: View- point generalization via a binocular vision.Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    When vision transformers outperform resnets without pre- training or strong data augmentations

    Xiangning Chen, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Boqing Gong. When vision transformers outperform resnets without pre- training or strong data augmentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01548, 2021. 2, 3

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Pali: A jointly- scaled multilingual language-image model

    Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. Pali: A jointly- scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794, 2022. 4

    arXiv 2022

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Object modelling by regis- tration of multiple range images

    Yang Chen and G ´erard Medioni. Object modelling by regis- tration of multiple range images. Image and vision comput- ing, 10(3):145–155, 1992. 7

    1992

  2. [10]

    Abo: Dataset and benchmarks for real-world 3d object un- derstanding

    Jasmine Collins, Shubham Goel, Kenan Deng, Achlesh- war Luthra, Leon Xu, Erhan Gundogdu, Xi Zhang, Tomas F Yago Vicente, Thomas Dideriksen, Himanshu Arora, et al. Abo: Dataset and benchmarks for real-world 3d object un- derstanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Support-vector networks

    Corinna Cortes. Support-vector networks. Machine Learn- ing, 1995. 4

    1995

  4. [12]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 3

    2009

  5. [13]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization

    P Kingma Diederik. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. (No Title), 2014. 6

    2014

  6. [14]

    Viewfool: Evaluating the robustness of visual recognition to adversarial viewpoints

    Yinpeng Dong, Shouwei Ruan, Hang Su, Caixin Kang, Xingxing Wei, and Jun Zhu. Viewfool: Evaluating the robustness of visual recognition to adversarial viewpoints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 36789–36803, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [15]

    Dense and aligned captions (dac) promote compositional reasoning in vl models

    Sivan Doveh, Assaf Arbelle, Sivan Harary, Roei Herzig, Donghyun Kim, Paola Cascante-Bonilla, Amit Alfassy, Rameswar Panda, Raja Giryes, Rogerio Feris, et al. Dense and aligned captions (dac) promote compositional reasoning in vl models. Advances in Neural Information Processin...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Prob- ing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models

    Mohamed El Banani, Amit Raj, Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Ab- hishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Michael Rubinstein, Deqing Sun, Leonidas Guibas, Justin Johnson, and Varun Jampani. Prob- ing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography.Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981

    Martin A Fischler and Robert C Bolles. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography.Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981. 7

    1981

  10. [18]

    Sharpness-aware minimization for efficiently improving generalization

    Pierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, and Behnam Neyshabur. Sharpness-aware minimization for efficiently improving generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01412,

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The generic viewpoint assumption in a framework for visual perception

    William T Freeman. The generic viewpoint assumption in a framework for visual perception. Nature, 368(6471):542– 545, 1994. 2, 8

    1994

  12. [20]

    Exploiting the generic viewpoint as- sumption

    William T Freeman. Exploiting the generic viewpoint as- sumption. International Journal of Computer Vision, 20(3): 243–261, 1996. 2

    1996

  13. [21]

    Dream- sim: Learning new dimensions of human visual similar- ity using synthetic data

    Stephanie Fu, Netanel Tamir, Shobhita Sundaram, Lucy Chai, Richard Zhang, Tali Dekel, and Phillip Isola. Dream- sim: Learning new dimensions of human visual similar- ity using synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09344 ,

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Towards viewpoint invariant 3d human pose estimation

    Albert Haque, Boya Peng, Zelun Luo, Alexandre Alahi, Ser- ena Yeung, and Li Fei-Fei. Towards viewpoint invariant 3d human pose estimation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14 , pages 160–

    2016

  15. [23]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

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

    2022

  16. [24]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , 36 (4):1–13, 2017. 7

    2017

  17. [25]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In Interna- tional conference on machine learning, pages 12888–12900. PMLR, 2022. 1

    2022

  18. [26]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, 9 Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedi...

    2014

  19. [27]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 26296–26306, 2024. 6, 8

    2024

  20. [28]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feicht- enhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 11976–11986,

  21. [29]

    When and how con- volutional neural networks generalize to out-of-distribution category–viewpoint combinations

    Spandan Madan, Timothy Henry, Jamell Dozier, Helen Ho, Nishchal Bhandari, Tomotake Sasaki, Fr ´edo Durand, Hanspeter Pfister, and Xavier Boix. When and how con- volutional neural networks generalize to out-of-distribution category–viewpoint combinations. Nature Machine Intelli...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Understanding zero-shot adversar- ial robustness for large-scale models

    Chengzhi Mao, Scott Geng, Junfeng Yang, Xin Wang, and Carl V ondrick. Understanding zero-shot adversar- ial robustness for large-scale models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07016, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A survey of advances in vision-based human motion capture and analysis

    Thomas B Moeslund, Adrian Hilton, and V olker Kr ¨uger. A survey of advances in vision-based human motion capture and analysis. Computer Vision and Image Understanding , 104(2-3), 2006. 1

    2006

  24. [32]

    View-point invariant 3d classification for mobile robots using a convo- lutional neural network

    Jiyoun Moon, Hanjun Kim, and Beomhee Lee. View-point invariant 3d classification for mobile robots using a convo- lutional neural network. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, 16(6):2888–2895, 2018. 2

    2018

  25. [33]

    Quality not quantity: On the interaction between dataset design and robustness of clip

    Thao Nguyen, Gabriel Ilharco, Mitchell Wortsman, Se- woong Oh, and Ludwig Schmidt. Quality not quantity: On the interaction between dataset design and robustness of clip. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:21455–21469, 2022. 2

    2022

  26. [34]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 2, 3, 8

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery

    Or Patashnik, Zongze Wu, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Dani Lischinski. Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 2085–2094,

  28. [36]

    Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision. In International Conference on Machine Learning...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Com- mon objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruction

    Jeremy Reizenstein, Roman Shapovalov, Philipp Henzler, Luca Sbordone, Patrick Labatut, and David Novotny. Com- mon objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vi...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the inter- pretation and validation of cluster analysis

    Peter J Rousseeuw. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the inter- pretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of com- putational and applied mathematics, 20:53–65, 1987. 4

    1987

  32. [40]

    Towards viewpoint-invariant visual recognition via adversarial training

    Shouwei Ruan, Yinpeng Dong, Hang Su, Jianteng Peng, Ning Chen, and Xingxing Wei. Towards viewpoint-invariant visual recognition via adversarial training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 4709–4719, 2023. 2

    2023

  33. [41]

    Omniview-tuning: Boosting viewpoint invariance of vision-language pre-training models

    Shouwei Ruan, Yinpeng Dong, Hanqing Liu, Yao Huang, Hang Su, and Xingxing Wei. Omniview-tuning: Boosting viewpoint invariance of vision-language pre-training models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12139, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, San- jeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision, 115:211–252, 2015. 3

    2015

  35. [43]

    On the adversarial robustness of multi-modal foundation models

    Christian Schlarmann and Matthias Hein. On the adversarial robustness of multi-modal foundation models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 3677–3685, 2023. 2

    2023

  36. [44]

    Robust clip: Unsupervised ad- versarial fine-tuning of vision embeddings for robust large vision-language models

    Christian Schlarmann, Naman Deep Singh, Francesco Croce, and Matthias Hein. Robust clip: Unsupervised ad- versarial fine-tuning of vision embeddings for robust large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12336,

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Learning viewpoint-agnostic visual representations by recovering to- kens in 3d space

    Jinghuan Shang, Srijan Das, and Michael Ryoo. Learning viewpoint-agnostic visual representations by recovering to- kens in 3d space. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 35:31031–31044, 2022. 2

    2022

  38. [46]

    From big data to knowledge in ai

    Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Liming Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. From big data to knowledge in ai. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 18(1),

  39. [47]

    Accidental pin- hole and pinspeck cameras: Revealing the scene outside the picture

    Antonio Torralba and William T Freeman. Accidental pin- hole and pinspeck cameras: Revealing the scene outside the picture. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, 2012. 2, 8

    2012

  40. [48]

    Deit iii: Revenge of the vit

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, and Herv ´e J ´egou. Deit iii: Revenge of the vit. In European conference on computer vision, pages 516–533. Springer, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  41. [49]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi`ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A closer look at the robustness of contrastive language-image pre-training (clip)

    Weijie Tu, Weijian Deng, and Tom Gedeon. A closer look at the robustness of contrastive language-image pre-training (clip). Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  43. [51]

    Sam-clip: Merging vision foundation models to- wards semantic and spatial understanding

    Haoxiang Wang, Pavan Kumar Anasosalu Vasu, Fartash Faghri, Raviteja Vemulapalli, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Sachin Mehta, Mohammad Rastegari, Oncel Tuzel, and Hadi 10 Pouransari. Sam-clip: Merging vision foundation models to- wards semantic and spatial understanding. In Proceedings o...

    2024

  44. [52]

    On the role of structure in vision

    Andrew P Witkin and Jay M Tenenbaum. On the role of structure in vision. In Human and machine vision. Elsevier,

  45. [53]

    Viewpoint invari- ant human re-identification in camera networks using pose priors and subject-discriminative features

    Ziyan Wu, Yang Li, and Richard J Radke. Viewpoint invari- ant human re-identification in camera networks using pose priors and subject-discriminative features. IEEE transac- tions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 37(5): 1095–1108, 2014. 2

    2014

  46. [54]

    Discovering viewpoint-invariant relationships that characterize objects

    Richard Zemel and Geoffrey E Hinton. Discovering viewpoint-invariant relationships that characterize objects. Advances in neural information processing systems, 3, 1990. 2

    1990

  47. [55]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training

    Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11975–11986, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  48. [56]

    Bertscore: Evaluating text genera- tion with bert

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Wein- berger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text genera- tion with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675, 2019. 7

    1904 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ood-cv: A benchmark for robustness to indi- vidual nuisances in real-world out-of-distribution shifts

    Bingchen Zhao, Shaozuo Yu, Wufei Ma, Mingxin Yu, Shenxiao Mei, Angtian Wang, Ju He, Alan Yuille, and Adam Kortylewski. Ood-cv: A benchmark for robustness to indi- vidual nuisances in real-world out-of-distribution shifts. In ICML 2022 Shift Happens Workshop, 2022. 2 11

    2022

Pith tools

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