Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

RGBDS-SLAM: A RGB-D Semantic Dense SLAM Based on 3D Multi Level Pyramid Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a coarse-to-fine pyramid of 3D Gaussian splatting with joint RGB-depth-semantic optimization yields the best photorealistic dense SLAM maps on Replica and ScanNet.

desk verdict Incremental but real extension of GS-SLAM with pyramid training; headline RGB gains rest on unverified baseline comparability. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01217 v2 pith:PZEMAMCK submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CV

Zhenzhong Cao , Chenyang Zhao , Qianyi Zhang , Jinzheng Guang , Yinuo Song Jingtai Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords denseSLAM3DGaussiansplattingmulti-levelimagepyramidsemanticmappingRGB-Dreconstructionmulti-featureoptimizationreal-timescene
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes RGBDS-SLAM, a dense SLAM system that reconstructs scene color, depth, and semantic labels simultaneously using 3D Gaussian splatting, and claims it outperforms current state-of-the-art methods on the Replica and ScanNet datasets. The first contribution is a 3D multi-level pyramid Gaussian splatting method that trains the map from a coarse-to-fine stack of RGB, depth, and semantic images, which the paper says restores fine scene details and keeps the three reconstructions consistent. The second is a tightly coupled multi-features reconstruction optimization mechanism that sums the RGB, depth, and semantic losses in one backpropagation, which the paper says lets the three modalities improve each other. On Replica, the reported gains are 11.13% in PSNR and 68.57% in LPIPS over the second-best competing method, with a semantic mIoU of 94.32 and real-time tracking and mapping frame rates. If the system is right, robots could build photorealistic, semantically labeled indoor maps online, which matters for grasping, manipulation, and interaction.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a 3D multi-level pyramid Gaussian splatting (MLP-GS) module built on isotropic 3D Gaussian primitives, where each primitive carries position, shape, color, depth value, and semantic color; for each of the RGB, depth, and semantic channels an $n$-layer image pyramid is constructed ($n=3$ in experiments) and training proceeds from low to high resolution by randomly selecting a pyramid level each iteration. The other load-bearing piece is the tightly coupled multi-features reconstruction optimization (TCMF-RO), defined as a single loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{recon}}(i) = \mathcal{L}_r(i) + \mathcal{L}_d(i) + \mathcal{L}_s(i)$ over the $i$-th pyramid layer, where RGB and semantic terms combine $L_1$ plus SSIM and the depth term is $L_1$. Together they convert keyframes and map points from an ORB-SLAM3 pipeline into Gaussian primitives and update a Gaussian origin map and a Gaussian semantic map.

What would settle it

Run the same MLP-GS pipeline with the RGB loss alone, held to the same number of iterations, pyramid levels, and optimizer settings as the full model, and compare PSNR and LPIPS on held-out Replica views; if the RGB-only model matches the full model's quality, the claimed mutual enhancement from depth and semantic losses is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that going beyond single-resolution Gaussian splatting, by training on a multi-level image pyramid in which resolution rises level by level, reconstructs scene details that standard 3D GS training misses, and that optimizing RGB, depth, and semantic rendering together through $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{recon}} = \mathcal{L}_r + \mathcal{L}_d + \mathcal{L}_s$ makes each feature's reconstruction better than optimizing on RGB alone. The paper presents its MLP-GS module as restoring details such as numbers, textures, and boundaries, and its TCMF-RO module as the mechanism by which semantic understanding sharpens depth, depth supports semantics, and both improve RGB realism. The evidence is the quantitative tables on Replica, where the method reports the best PSNR and LPIPS among the compared NeRF-based and 3D-GS-based SLAM systems, and the ablation in which adding depth and semantic losses raises PSNR from 36.62 to 38.85.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that adding the depth and semantic losses to the RGB loss inside one shared Gaussian map makes the three reconstructions genuinely improve one another; if the gains instead come simply from training on more data or from sharing parameters, the paper's central 'tightly coupled' contribution collapses to ordinary multi-task training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, a single real-time SLAM pass can produce a dense map that is simultaneously photorealistic, geometrically accurate, and semantically labeled, removing the need for separate reconstruction and segmentation stages.
  • The reported frame rates of 29.55 FPS tracking and 32.22 FPS mapping on an RTX 3060 laptop mean the reconstruction quality gains do not have to come at the cost of real-time operation.
  • The coarse-to-fine pyramid schedule is a generic training recipe: any Gaussian-splatting scene optimizer, not just a SLAM system, could adopt the same progressive-resolution scheme to improve detail recovery.
  • Because the system uses ORB-SLAM3 tracking without further pose optimization, its ATE accuracy is close to Photo-SLAM; the headline gains are in map quality, not in localization accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the 'tight coupling' claim is not yet proven by a sum of independent losses; the paper gives no cross-modal loss term or gradient analysis, so the observed gains could come from shared parameters or longer training rather than mutual enhancement.
  • Inference: a natural testable extension is to make pyramid-level selection adaptive per frame or per region, since the paper samples levels randomly and never analyzes which resolution benefits which scene content.
  • Inference: the qualitative SAM2 experiment hints that semantic supervision can come from a noisy segmenter and still be corrected by multi-frame Gaussian mapping; a quantitative mIoU evaluation with SAM2 pseudo-labels on ScanNet would separate that claim from the Replica ground-truth results.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RGBDS-SLAM, a dense RGB-D semantic SLAM system built on ORB-SLAM3 and 3D Gaussian Splatting. Two main contributions are claimed: a multi-level pyramid Gaussian splatting scheme (MLP-GS) that progressively trains at increasing resolutions, and a tightly coupled multi-feature reconstruction optimization mechanism (TCMF-RO) that jointly optimizes RGB, depth, and semantic losses. The method is evaluated on Replica and ScanNet, reporting state-of-the-art RGB reconstruction on Replica with an 11.13% PSNR improvement and 68.57% LPIPS improvement over the second-best baseline, competitive depth and semantic metrics, and real-time operation.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, RGBDS-SLAM demonstrates a practical real-time dense SLAM system with high-quality RGB, depth, and semantic reconstruction. The pyramid-based progressive training is a simple and plausible way to improve detail recovery in Gaussian splatting SLAM, and the paper provides ablations and qualitative results supporting its benefit. The open-source commitment and evaluation on public benchmarks are strengths. However, the 'tightly coupled' mechanism as presented is only an additive loss combination, so the claimed mutual-enhancement contribution is not established; and the headline quantitative comparison relies on baseline numbers copied from other papers without a common protocol. These issues materially affect the strength of the paper's central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-A, Table I] The paper does not specify the evaluation protocol used for its own method: which frames are rendered (training vs. held-out views), how many evaluations are averaged per sequence, whether poses are the estimated or ground-truth poses, and which LPIPS implementation and backbone are used. Since all baseline numbers are stated to be 'derived from the original texts' (Section IV-A), the comparison in Table I is only valid if the protocols are identical. This is particularly critical for LPIPS, which is sensitive to the feature extractor and version; the claimed 68.57% LPIPS improvement could be an artifact of protocol mismatch. Please specify the exact protocol and, ideally, re-run at least the closest baselines (Photo-SLAM, SGS-SLAM, NEDS-SLAM) under the same conditions, or provide per-protocol justification for the comparability of the copied numbers.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table I] The relative improvements in the headline claim are computed inconsistently. The PSNR improvement of 11.13% is relative to the baseline (38.85 vs. 34.96), while the LPIPS improvement of 68.57% is relative to the new value ((0.059-0.035)/0.035 = 68.57%). Using the standard convention of improvement relative to the baseline gives (0.059-0.035)/0.059 ≈ 40.7% for LPIPS. This inconsistency inflates the headline result. Please use a single consistent formula for all reported percentage improvements.
  3. [Section III-D, Eq. (13)] The 'tightly coupled multi-features reconstruction optimization' mechanism is defined as a simple sum of independent RGB, depth, and semantic losses in Eq. (13). The claim that the three modalities 'promote and enhance each other' is not supported by any cross-modal constraint, gradient analysis, or mechanism beyond sharing the Gaussian parameters. The ablation in Table IV shows that including depth and semantic losses improves RGB metrics, but this is also expected from standard multi-task training with additional supervision. Either provide evidence of a genuine coupling effect (e.g., cross-modal gradient propagation analysis, an ablation with independent per-modality optimizers, or a non-additive coupling term) or revise the wording to describe the contribution as joint multi-task optimization rather than 'tightly coupled' mutual enhancement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A] The metric name 'RSNR' should be 'PSNR' (Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio).
  2. [Table I] The ESLAM row is cited as [10], but reference [10] is Co-SLAM; ESLAM is reference [11]. The citation should be corrected to [11].
  3. [Section III-C] The pyramid construction is not fully specified: the downsampling ratios for each level, the interpolation method, and the exact schedule for progressing between levels (e.g., number of iterations per level) are not stated. Please provide these details for reproducibility.
  4. [Section IV-D, Fig. 6] The ablation of MLP-GS on ScanNet is only qualitative; no quantitative metrics are reported for ScanNet. The abstract claims 'extensive quantitative ... experiments' on both Replica and ScanNet, but the ScanNet evaluation is qualitative only. Please add quantitative ScanNet results or revise the wording.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'Extrcation' in Eqs. (4)-(6), 'A VG' in Table III, 'futhermore' in the conclusion, and inconsistent hyphenation of 'multi-feature'/'multi-features'. These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity in the benchmark claims; the only taxonomy-relevant issue is that the TCMF-RO 'tightly coupled' mechanism is a renamed sum of standard per-modality losses.

  1. renaming known result [Section III-D, Eq. (13); also contribution bullet 2 and Section IV-D ablation interpretation]
    "Finally, we tightly couple multiple features into a reconstruction optimization framework to perform joint optimization: Lreconstruction(i) = Lr(i) + Ld(i) + Ls(i) (13). Through the proposed TCMF-RO, which couples multiple features within a single framework, the RGB, depth, and semantic features in the 3D gaussian primitives can promote and enhance each other during optimization."

    TCMF-RO is defined, in Eq. (13), as the ordinary sum of the RGB loss (Eq. 10), depth loss (Eq. 11), and semantic loss (Eq. 12), with no cross-modal term, interaction weight, or consistency constraint. The claimed property that the three modalities 'promote and enhance each other' is not a consequence derived from this objective; it is the standard multi-task training objective relabeled as a 'tightly coupled mechanism.' The later ablation (Table IV) can at most show that adding these losses helps, not that a new coupling mechanism exists. This is a contribution-inflation/renaming issue rather than a reduction of the externally benchmarked RGB quality claim.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claims are checked against external datasets (Replica, ScanNet) with standard metrics, and no fitted constant is later reported as a prediction. The losses are computed against the ground-truth RGB, depth, and semantic frames used to train the Gaussians, which is standard reconstruction-quality evaluation in dense SLAM rather than a held-out prediction. Baseline numbers are quoted from their original papers rather than re-run; this creates a protocol-comparability risk (especially for LPIPS) but is not a circular derivation. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggling via citation were found. The one taxonomy-relevant step is the TCMF-RO contribution: Eq. (13) is simply Lr + Ld + Ls, so the 'tightly coupled ... mutually enhance each other' language is a new name for ordinary multi-task loss summation. Because the central benchmark result does not reduce to this named mechanism, the circularity is minor; score 2 reflects this single renaming/contribution-inflation issue.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; the system uses existing 3D Gaussian primitives augmented with depth and semantic attributes. The only invented elements are architectural choices (pyramid levels and loss weights), which are free parameters. The assumptions listed above are the load-bearing premises that connect the proposed modules to the claimed benchmark improvements.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of pyramid levels = 3
    Set in Section IV-A without a sensitivity study; controls how many resolution stages are trained.
  • RGB loss weight lambda_r = 0.2
    Chosen in Eq. 10; no sweep is reported over this value.
  • Semantic loss weight lambda_s = 0.2
    Chosen in Eq. 12; no sweep is reported over this value.
  • Pyramid downsampling ratios = not specified
    The per-level resolution factors are not stated, so the exact training schedule cannot be reproduced.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Progressive multi-resolution training from prior NeRF literature transfers to 3D Gaussian splatting and improves reconstruction.
    Section III-C cites [26]-[30] and assumes the benefit carries over; only qualitative validation is provided on ScanNet.
  • standard math Alpha-composited 2D Gaussian splatting (Eqs. 7-9) is a valid differentiable renderer for SLAM optimization.
    Standard 3D GS formulation adopted from Kerbl et al. [16].
  • domain assumption ORB-SLAM3 tracking poses are accurate enough without joint optimization during mapping.
    The system uses ORB-SLAM3 poses directly; the reported ATE (0.499 cm mean) is worse than SGS-SLAM (0.327), so this assumption limits localization accuracy.
  • domain assumption Baseline numbers taken from original papers are comparable to numbers produced in this paper's environment.
    Section IV-A states all baseline metrics are copied from published texts, not re-run; hardware and protocol differences are unaccounted.
  • domain assumption Semantic supervision from ground truth or SAM2 pseudo-labels is sufficiently reliable.
    SAM2 results contain errors that the method is claimed to correct; the reliability of this correction is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RGBDS-SLAM: A RGB-D Semantic Dense SLAM Based on 3D Multi Level Pyramid Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZEMAMCK

@misc{pith2026241201217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RGBDS-SLAM: A RGB-D Semantic Dense SLAM Based on 3D Multi Level Pyramid Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZEMAMCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01217}
}
read the original abstract

High-quality reconstruction is crucial for dense SLAM. Recent popular approaches utilize 3D Gaussian Splatting (3D GS) techniques for RGB, depth, and semantic reconstruction of scenes. However, these methods often overlook issues of detail and consistency in different parts of the scene. To address this, we propose RGBDS-SLAM, a RGB-D semantic dense SLAM system based on 3D multi-level pyramid gaussian splatting, which enables high-quality dense reconstruction of scene RGB, depth, and semantics.In this system, we introduce a 3D multi-level pyramid gaussian splatting method that restores scene details by extracting multi-level image pyramids for gaussian splatting training, ensuring consistency in RGB, depth, and semantic reconstructions. Additionally, we design a tightly-coupled multi-features reconstruction optimization mechanism, allowing the reconstruction accuracy of RGB, depth, and semantic maps to mutually enhance each other during the rendering optimization process. Extensive quantitative, qualitative, and ablation experiments on the Replica and ScanNet public datasets demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms current state-of-the-art methods. The open-source code will be available at: https://github.com/zhenzhongcao/RGBDS-SLAM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed RGBDS-SLAM. Our method is an enhancement of ORB-SLAM3 [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi level image pyramid construction. During the training process, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative performance of our proposed method on RGB image rendering details from 8 sequences of the Replica dataset is shown. The first and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of rendered depth images and groundtruth depth images of our method on office0 sequence of Replica dataset. The first row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of semantic image rendering of our method on four sequences of Replica dataset. The first row is the RGB image rendered from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study of the multi-level pyramid gaussian splatting in our proposed method on ScanNet dataset. The first row shows the multi-frame RGB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the SAM2 segmentation results and the rendered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LEG-SLAM: Real-Time Language-Enhanced Gaussian Splatting for SLAM

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LEG-SLAM is a real-time RGB-D SLAM that jointly renders photorealistic images and open-vocabulary semantic masks by distilling PCA-compressed DINOv2 features into 3D Gaussians.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Elasticfusion: Real-time dense slam and light source estimation,

    T. Whelan, R. F. Salas-Moreno, B. Glocker, A. J. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “Elasticfusion: Real-time dense slam and light source estimation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 1697–1716, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Direct sparse odometry,

    J. Engel, V . Koltun, and D. Cremers, “Direct sparse odometry,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 611–625, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras,

    R. Mur-Artal and J. D. Tard ´os, “Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1255–1262, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Stat- icfusion: Background reconstruction for dense rgb-d slam in dynamic environments,

    R. Scona, M. Jaimez, Y . R. Petillot, M. Fallon, and D. Cremers, “Stat- icfusion: Background reconstruction for dense rgb-d slam in dynamic environments,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 3849–3856

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Flowfusion: Dynamic dense rgb-d slam based on optical flow,

    T. Zhang, H. Zhang, Y . Li, Y . Nakamura, and L. Zhang, “Flowfusion: Dynamic dense rgb-d slam based on optical flow,” in 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 7322–7328

    2020

  6. [6]

    Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,

    Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V . Larsson, W. Xu, H. Bao, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 12 786–12 796

    2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    V ox- fusion: Dense tracking and mapping with voxel-based neural implicit representation,

    X. Yang, H. Li, H. Zhai, Y . Ming, Y . Liu, and G. Zhang, “V ox- fusion: Dense tracking and mapping with voxel-based neural implicit representation,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 499–507

    2022

  2. [10]

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

    H. Wang, J. Wang, and L. Agapito, “Co-slam: Joint coordinate and sparse parametric encodings for neural real-time slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 13 293–13 302

    2023

  3. [11]

    Eslam: Efficient dense slam system based on hybrid representation of signed distance fields,

    M. M. Johari, C. Carta, and F. Fleuret, “Eslam: Efficient dense slam system based on hybrid representation of signed distance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 408–17 419

    2023

  4. [12]

    Point-slam: Dense neural point cloud-based slam,

    E. Sandstr ¨om, Y . Li, L. Van Gool, and M. R. Oswald, “Point-slam: Dense neural point cloud-based slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 18 433–18 444

    2023

  5. [13]

    Neural implicit dense semantic slam,

    Y . Haghighi, S. Kumar, J.-P. Thiran, and L. Van Gool, “Neural implicit dense semantic slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14560 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dns slam: Dense neural semantic-informed slam,

    K. Li, M. Niemeyer, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, “Dns slam: Dense neural semantic-informed slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00204 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sni-slam: Semantic neural implicit slam,

    S. Zhu, G. Wang, H. Blum, J. Liu, L. Song, M. Pollefeys, and H. Wang, “Sni-slam: Semantic neural implicit slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 21 167–21 177

    2024

  8. [16]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

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

    N. Keetha, J. Karhade, K. M. Jatavallabhula, G. Yang, S. Scherer, D. Ramanan, and J. Luiten, “Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 21 357–21 366

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gs- slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting,

    C. Yan, D. Qu, D. Xu, B. Zhao, Z. Wang, D. Wang, and X. Li, “Gs- slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 19 595–19 604

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gaussian splatting slam,

    H. Matsuki, R. Murai, P. H. Kelly, and A. J. Davison, “Gaussian splatting slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 18 039–18 048

    2024

  12. [20]

    Gaussian-slam: Photo-realistic dense slam with gaussian splatting,

    V . Yugay, Y . Li, T. Gevers, and M. R. Oswald, “Gaussian-slam: Photo-realistic dense slam with gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10070, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Photo-slam: Real- time simultaneous localization and photorealistic mapping for monocular stereo and rgb-d cameras,

    H. Huang, L. Li, H. Cheng, and S.-K. Yeung, “Photo-slam: Real- time simultaneous localization and photorealistic mapping for monocular stereo and rgb-d cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 21 584–21 593

    2024

  14. [22]

    Neds-slam: A neural explicit dense semantic slam framework using 3d gaussian splatting,

    Y . Ji, Y . Liu, G. Xie, B. Ma, Z. Xie, and H. Liu, “Neds-slam: A neural explicit dense semantic slam framework using 3d gaussian splatting,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Semgauss-slam: Dense semantic gaussian splatting slam,

    S. Zhu, R. Qin, G. Wang, J. Liu, and H. Wang, “Semgauss-slam: Dense semantic gaussian splatting slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07494 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sgs- slam: Semantic gaussian splatting for neural dense slam,

    M. Li, S. Liu, H. Zhou, G. Zhu, N. Cheng, T. Deng, and H. Wang, “Sgs- slam: Semantic gaussian splatting for neural dense slam,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2025, pp. 163–179

    2025

  17. [25]

    The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces,

    J. Straub, T. Whelan, L. Ma, Y . Chen, E. Wijmans, S. Green, J. J. Engel, R. Mur-Artal, C. Ren, S. Verma et al. , “The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797 , 2019

    1906 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Neural sparse voxel fields,

    L. Liu, J. Gu, K. Zaw Lin, T.-S. Chua, and C. Theobalt, “Neural sparse voxel fields,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 15 651–15 663, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Direct voxel grid optimization: Super- fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction,

    C. Sun, M. Sun, and H.-T. Chen, “Direct voxel grid optimization: Super- fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 5459–5469

    2022

  20. [28]

    Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3d shapes,

    T. Takikawa, J. Litalien, K. Yin, K. Kreis, C. Loop, D. Nowrouzezahrai, A. Jacobson, M. McGuire, and S. Fidler, “Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3d shapes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction,

    Z. Li, T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, R. H. Taylor, M. Unberath, M.-Y . Liu, and C.-H. Lin, “Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 8456–8465

    2023

  22. [30]

    Bungeenerf: Progressive neural radiance field for extreme multi- scale scene rendering,

    Y . Xiangli, L. Xu, X. Pan, N. Zhao, A. Rao, C. Theobalt, B. Dai, and D. Lin, “Bungeenerf: Progressive neural radiance field for extreme multi- scale scene rendering,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 106–122

    2022

  23. [31]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,

    A. Dai, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, M. Halber, T. Funkhouser, and M. Nießner, “Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 5828–5839

    2017

  24. [32]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 586–595

    2018

  26. [34]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson et al. , “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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