Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 60 references

LineGS : 3D Line Segment Representation on 3D Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 4 major / 9 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 LineGS refines 3D line segments using Gaussian splatting density, improving edge representation fit by 7.3 to 42.9 percent.

desk verdict A plausible post-processing recipe for line segments in 3DGS scenes, but its evaluation is circular and the 'geometric accuracy' claim goes beyond what is measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00477 v3 pith:YIPXZZPW submitted 2024-11-30 cs.CV

Chenggang Yang , Yuang Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DlinereconstructionGaussiansplattingsegmentabstractiongeometry-guideddensityrefinementpointcloudpost-processingscenerepresentationedgedetection
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 LineGS, a post-processing method that takes 3D line segments produced by geometry-based reconstruction and refines them using the 3D Gaussian splatting model of the same scene. It claims that because Gaussian centers concentrate along object and color boundaries, shifting, cropping, and merging the initial segments according to local Gaussian density yields a sparser set of line segments that better represent the scene's edges than the original geometry-based output. On the ABC-NEF dataset the fit score rises 21.2 percent, and on indoor and outdoor scenes it rises 7.3 to 42.9 percent, at the cost of covering fewer Gaussian points. The paper also introduces a custom score (Eq. 6) that measures how well line segments represent the Gaussian model, since ground-truth geometry is unavailable for most real scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cylinder space $C(\vec{s}, r)$ centered on each line segment, which defines the set of nearby Gaussian centers. Over this cylinder the method computes three quantities used everywhere: Gaussian density (count of centers), the RMSE distance of centers to the segment, and coverage fraction. The pipeline then uses linear regression on projected offsets to translate the segment, binary-search cropping to trim overextensions, a global density threshold to drop outliers, and a similarity-based union-find clustering that merges or joins segments when the interpolated region has sufficient Gaussian density. An octree of height 10 makes the cylinder queries efficient.

What would settle it

Measure the distance from the refined segments to ground-truth edges on a dataset with known geometry, such as the CAD models in ABC-NEF, and check whether the Euclidean error decreases as the Eq. 6 score increases; if the score improves while the distance to true edges grows, the central premise fails. A second check is to recompute the comparison at larger cylinder radii, since the paper shows improvements shrink with radius and coverage can decline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Gaussian center density is a reliable geometric prior for edge location, and that it can be used to correct the four main defects of geometry-based line reconstruction: position bias, overextension, outliers, and duplication or discontinuity. For each initial segment, LineGS collects the Gaussian centers inside a cylinder of radius r around the segment, translates the segment by linear regression of the offset distances, crops its endpoints by binary search on density, removes segments whose density falls below a global threshold, and clusters similar segments to merge overlapping ones or join disconnected ones. The refinement is evaluated by a score that rewards low root-mean-square distance of covered Gaussians to the segment, high coverage fraction, and compact length; the paper reports consistent improvements over both L3D++ and ELSR inputs.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that high local density of trained Gaussian centers marks true 3D edges, so pulling lines toward dense Gaussian regions improves their geometric accuracy; if Gaussian centers are biased away from sharp edges (as the paper concedes for the splatting model), the refinement can move lines away from true edges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Line segments produced by geometry-guided methods can be upgraded without retraining the Gaussian model or the line reconstruction method.
  • The post-processed segments are more compact: they cover fewer Gaussian centers but with higher spatial consistency, so the abstract representation is sparser.
  • The method transfers across different initial segment generators: both L3D++ and ELSR outputs improve on the Herz-Jesu-25 scene, with score gains of 18.6 percent and 14.2 percent respectively.
  • Because Gaussian centers cluster at color and depth boundaries, the refined segments serve as an abstract representation of the Gaussian model itself, potentially useful for downstream tasks built on Gaussian splatting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to evaluate LineGS against ground-truth edges rather than only against the Gaussian model, which would separate 'fits the Gaussian prior' from 'fits the true scene edge'.
  • The benefit is scale-dependent because the cylinder radius is fixed per dataset; future work could adapt the radius per segment or per scene, or infer it from the Gaussian covariance.
  • The same density-guided post-processing could in principle be applied to other geometry-based primitives such as curves, planes, or wireframe junctions, using Gaussian density as a universal structural prior.
  • If Gaussian centers are systematically biased away from sharp edges by the splatting training loss, the refinement might distort thin structures; comparing performance on thin versus thick edges would reveal this bias.
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 / 9 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LineGS, a post-processing method that refines 3D line segments reconstructed by geometry-based methods (L3D++ and ELSR) using the center density of a trained 3D Gaussian Splatting model. The method includes translating segments toward Gaussian centers, cropping overextensions via binary search, removing low-density segments, and clustering-based merge/join operations. The authors evaluate with a custom score (Eq. 6) combining the RMSE of Gaussian centers to segments, coverage percentage, and a length-to-density ratio, reporting improvements of 7.3% to 42.9% on real scenes and 21.2% on ABC-NEF.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the method would be a simple and useful post-processing step for converting geometry-based line reconstructions into representations that align with a 3D Gaussian model. The idea of using Gaussian density to guide line refinement is interesting and potentially relevant to the 3D vision community. However, the current evaluation is circular: the proposed metric is composed of exactly the quantities that the post-processing steps are designed to optimize. Consequently, the reported improvements do not substantiate the abstract's claim of 'significant improvements in geometric accuracy.' The paper does provide reproducible code and a clear algorithmic description, which are strengths, but the geometric accuracy claim requires independent validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV, Eq. (6)] The evaluation metric is circular with respect to the method's optimization objectives. The score in Eq. (6) is defined as λ·Rcovered / (log(1+Erms)·log(1+RL)), where Erms measures distances from Gaussian centers to segments, Rcovered measures Gaussian coverage, and RL is a length-to-density ratio. The post-processing steps directly target these quantities: the translation in Eq. (2) minimizes the distance from Gaussian centers to the segment, reducing Erms; Algorithm 1 crops low-density overextensions, reducing RL; the density threshold in Eq. (3) removes low-coverage segments; and the merge/join operations retain candidates with the smallest Erms/N. Thus, the reported improvements in Tables I and II are partly guaranteed by construction and do not independently validate geometric accuracy. Please provide an evaluation against ground-truth geometry (e.g., CAD models in ABC-NEF) or a metric that is not optimized by the method.
  2. [III.B, 'Position Bias'] The paper acknowledges that '3DGS centers are not precisely located on sharp areas due to the characteristics of their splatting model,' yet the core alignment step in Eq. (2) moves segments toward these centers. This could systematically shift lines away from true scene edges. No evaluation is performed against ground-truth edge geometry on any dataset, including ABC-NEF where CAD ground truth exists. Without such a comparison, the abstract's claim of 'significant improvements in geometric accuracy' remains unsupported. Please quantify the offset from true edges, for instance by measuring the distance between the refined segments and the CAD model boundaries in ABC-NEF.
  3. [IV.A, Metrics] The definitions of Rcovered and RL are incomplete. Rcovered is described as 'Gaussian point coverage percentage' but the precise formula (fraction of Gaussians within the cylinder, fraction of segment length covered, or other) is never given. RL in Eq. (7) is defined as the total segment length divided by the logarithm of the number of covered Gaussians, but it is unclear how this ratio represents 'length-to-density' in a way that is scale-invariant or comparable across scenes of different sizes. Additionally, the scaling factor λ in Eq. (6) takes different values for ABC-NEF (0.1) and real scenes (1.0), so the absolute score values cannot be compared across datasets; only within-dataset relative improvements are meaningful, and those are not accompanied by any variance or significance measures.
  4. [Table I] The reported score improvements are not accompanied by error bars, standard deviations, or statistical significance tests. For playroom, the improvement is only 7.3%, which is small and could plausibly be within the noise of the method or the metric. Furthermore, the score values in Table I do not appear to match the formula with the stated parameters: for ABC-NEF, using Erms=4.72, Rcovered=92.0, RL=1.06, and λ=0.1 gives a score of approximately 7.30, not 7.784 as reported. Please check the consistency of the reported values and provide confidence intervals or per-scene breakdowns.
minor comments (9)
  1. [I] In the Introduction, 'we proposes' should be 'we propose.'
  2. [III.A, Eq. (1)] The Gaussian definition in Eq. (1) is missing the (x-μ) terms; it should be G(x) = exp(-1/2 (x-μ)^T Σ^{-1} (x-μ)). Also, the notation 'µ ∈ R3×3' is incorrect; the mean should be in R^3.
  3. [III.C, Eq. (2)] The 'linear regression' in Eq. (2) is actually a computation of the mean distance; the notation dist(x', s) is not defined. Please clarify whether this is the perpendicular distance from the projected point to the line segment and how the translation is applied in 3D.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Variable names are inconsistent: 'end density' on line 3 versus 'enddensity' on line 12, and the final assignment 's← mid, end' on line 18 is ambiguous about which endpoint is being replaced. Please clarify the notation.
  5. [III.C, Eq. (4)] The piecewise condition in Eq. (4) is confusing: the formula is computed when cos θ ≥ 0.5 and set to 0 otherwise. Please rephrase the condition and clarify that the similarity is non-negative.
  6. [IV.A] The text says 'The scaler in Eq. 3 is ξ = 0.02' but ξ is a multiplicative factor, not a scaler; consider using 'scaling factor.'
  7. [Table I] The header 'Rcovered ↑' indicates a desired direction, but the method intentionally reduces coverage; the text does acknowledge this, yet the table could benefit from an explicit note that lower coverage is acceptable in exchange for higher precision.
  8. [Figure 6] The x-axis label says 'values of radii, measured in meters,' while the text earlier uses centimeters for the cylinder radius; please ensure unit consistency.
  9. [I] There is a typo in 'Sructure-From-Motion' in the Introduction; it should be 'Structure-from-Motion.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Evaluation metric is circular: Eq. 6 and the post-processing optimize the same Erms/Rcovered/RL terms, so the reported 7-43% score gains do not by themselves substantiate the claimed geometric-accuracy improvement.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.A, Metrics, Eq. 6; Section III.C Eq. 2, Algorithms 1-2]
    "Since our post-processing method does not significantly alter the segment’s position or direction, and the initial 3D segments generated geometrically are deemed reliable, an ideal 3D line segment should: 1) have Gaussian points densely clustered along it, measured by Erms, and 2) exhibit a Gaussian point coverage percentage Rcovered proportional to its length."

    The custom score (Eq. 6) is a compound of Erms, Rcovered, and RL, and each post-processing step directly minimizes those terms: Eq. 2 translates a segment by t = argmin_t Σ ||dist(x′, s) − t||², reducing Erms; Algorithm 1 crops low-density overextensions, reducing the length component of RL; the density-threshold outlier removal and the merge/join rule 'retaining the one with the smallest R = Erms/N' further select for these same quantities. Hence an improvement in Eq. 6 is partly guaranteed by construction; it measures the method's own optimization target and cannot independently support the abstract's wording 'significant improvements in ... geometric accuracy'.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Section IV.A, Metrics]
    "Evaluating the quality of scene representation is typically done by calculating the error with respect to ground-truth data. However, aside from CAD models like those in the ABC-NEF dataset, ground-truth values are challenging to obtain for real-world scenes. In contrast, evaluating the representation of Gaussian center distributions is more feasible"

    The paper's headline claim of improved 'geometric accuracy' is validated exclusively against fit to Gaussian centers, ignoring that ABC-NEF has CAD ground truth. 'Representation ability' is therefore defined as proximity to Gaussian centers, the very quantity the post-processing is fitted to maximize. The 'prediction' that LineGS is geometrically more accurate is a rename of the fitted objective, not an independent measurement.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims rest on the custom score in Eq. 6, whose components Erms, Rcovered, and RL are exactly what the post-processing steps optimize: translation (Eq. 2) reduces Erms, binary-search cropping (Algorithm 1) reduces the length contribution to RL, density-threshold removal and merge/join retain segments minimizing Erms/N. The reported 7-43% improvements are therefore partly built into the evaluation target and cannot independently establish the abstract's 'geometric accuracy' claim. The paper itself concedes in Section III.B that 'The 3DGS centers are not precisely located on sharp areas due to the characteristics of their splatting model,' so aligning lines to Gaussian centers can pull them away from true edges, and no comparison against ground-truth geometry is provided even on ABC-NEF where CAD ground truth exists. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness import is present; the circularity is specific to the evaluation metric coinciding with the optimization objective. This warrants a partial circularity score of 6 rather than a higher one, because the post-processing also performs legitimate operations such as de-duplication and outlier removal that are not trivially vacuous.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on a chain of choices: the cylinder radius r, the density threshold scalar, the similarity weight, the clustering tolerance, and the evaluation score's scaling factor, plus the domain premise that Gaussian density marks true edges. None of these are derived or externally validated; most are fixed by hand per dataset. There are no invented physical entities, but the custom evaluation score (Eq. 6) functions as a new measurement instrument without independent calibration.

free parameters (6)
  • cylinder radius r = 3 cm (ABC-NEF), 5 cm (other datasets)
    Defines the neighborhood around each line segment for density, RMSE, and refinement; hand-set per dataset in Implementation Details.
  • density threshold scalar xi = 0.02
    Global outlier removal threshold theta = xi * mean density (Eq. 3); no justification for the value is given.
  • similarity weight lambda = 2 / r^2
    Weight in the segment similarity function (Eq. 4); chosen as a heuristic tied to the cylinder radius.
  • score scaling factor lambda = 0.1 (ABC-NEF), 1 (other datasets)
    Scaling factor in the evaluation score (Eq. 6); does not change relative improvement but is arbitrary.
  • cluster parameter p.cluster_c = not specified
    In Algorithm 2, the clustering tolerance and its update rule depend on this value, which is not given in the paper.
  • overextension half-length assumption = half the segment length
    Binary search cropping assumes the overextended part is at most half the segment; stated as 'validated through experiments' but no experiment is shown.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian centers concentrate along object edges and color boundaries
    The entire refinement and evaluation assume that Gaussian point density is a faithful proxy for true 3D edges. Invoked in Sec. III-A and Fig. 1, and used to justify all post-processing operations.
  • domain assumption Initial geometry-based line segments are reliable in position and direction
    Sec. III.A and IV.A state that initial segments are 'deemed reliable' and the method only adjusts them slightly; if initial segments are systematically wrong, the refinement inherits the bias.
  • ad hoc to paper The proposed score (Eq. 6) is a valid measure of representation quality
    The score is introduced by the authors for this paper and is not validated against any external measure of line quality or downstream task performance.
  • domain assumption Gaussian centers are well-distributed enough for reliable density queries
    Octree density and RMSE calculations assume the trained Gaussian centers are dense near edges and not dominated by floaters or noise; no statistics are given. This enters in Sec. III-C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LineGS : 3D Line Segment Representation on 3D Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIPXZZPW

@misc{pith2026241200477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LineGS : 3D Line Segment Representation on 3D Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIPXZZPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00477}
}
read the original abstract

Abstract representations of 3D scenes play a crucial role in computer vision, enabling a wide range of applications such as mapping, localization, surface reconstruction, and even advanced tasks like SLAM and rendering. Among these representations, line segments are widely used because of their ability to succinctly capture the structural features of a scene. However, existing 3D reconstruction methods often face significant challenges. Methods relying on 2D projections suffer from instability caused by errors in multi-view matching and occlusions, while direct 3D approaches are hampered by noise and sparsity in 3D point cloud data. This paper introduces LineGS, a novel method that combines geometry-guided 3D line reconstruction with a 3D Gaussian splatting model to address these challenges and improve representation ability. The method leverages the high-density Gaussian point distributions along the edge of the scene to refine and optimize initial line segments generated from traditional geometric approaches. By aligning these segments with the underlying geometric features of the scene, LineGS achieves a more precise and reliable representation of 3D structures. The results show significant improvements in both geometric accuracy and model compactness compared to baseline methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of trained Gaussian points. The centers of Gaussian points are concentrated at the boundaries of pixel colors and preserve intact three-dimensional spatial information. This scene is PLAYROOM from the Deep Blending dataset [49]. In Fig.1, the scene has a white cabinet and various colorful books placed on it, as well as tables and colorful carpets. It can be clearly seen that at the boundaries of these c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. It shows the defination of C(⃗s, r) and the calculation of similarity between two line segments ⃗si and ⃗sj . First in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The binary search cropping strategy of single segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on ABC-NEF [26]. The proposed method accurately addresses issues, such as redundant segments and misalignment with the actual boundaries of Gaussians. While it may sacrifice some boundary details, this trade-off is acceptable for the Gaussians. scen…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evaluation results with different radii. Here, we present evaluations using cylinders of varying radii to assess the line segments. The results show noticeable differences across radii, corresponding to the explanation provided in the main text. The x-axis represents t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall, our proposed method improves the fit of 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaluation results on truck. As we can see, segments produced by our method are clearer, more concise, and align well with the Gaussian model’s distribution, retaining only regions with a high density of Gaussian points. and outdoor scenes, with quantitative results sh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results on Herz-Jesu-25 [60]. We can see that our method preserves complete and accurate spatial information while retaining line segments that represent areas with sufficient Gaussian density. Additionally, it optimizes the position of the segments, result…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Structure-from-motion using lines: Representa- tion, triangulation, and bundle adjustment,

    A. Bartoli and P. Sturm, “Structure-from-motion using lines: Representa- tion, triangulation, and bundle adjustment,” Computer vision and image understanding, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 416–441, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    3d line mapping revisited,

    S. Liu, Y . Yu, R. Pautrat, M. Pollefeys, and V . Larsson, “3d line mapping revisited,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 445–21 455

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Line- sweep: Cross-ratio for wide-baseline matching and 3d reconstruction,

    S. Ramalingam, M. Antunes, D. Snow, G. Hee Lee, and S. Pillai, “Line- sweep: Cross-ratio for wide-baseline matching and 3d reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 1238–1246

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Handbook on leveraging lines for two-view relative pose estimation,

    P. Hruby, S. Liu, R. Pautrat, M. Pollefeys, and D. Barath, “Handbook on leveraging lines for two-view relative pose estimation,” in 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 376– 386

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Elaborate monocular point and line slam with robust initialization,

    S. J. Lee and S. S. Hwang, “Elaborate monocular point and line slam with robust initialization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 1121–1129

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Determination of camera location from 2-d to 3-d line and point correspondences,

    Y . Liu, T. S. Huang, and O. D. Faugeras, “Determination of camera location from 2-d to 3-d line and point correspondences,” IEEE Trans- actions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 28–37, 1990

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Edge-aware point set resampling,

    H. Huang, S. Wu, M. Gong, D. Cohen-Or, U. Ascher, and H. Zhang, “Edge-aware point set resampling,” ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Real-time monocular slam with straight lines

    P. Smith, I. Reid, and A. J. Davison, “Real-time monocular slam with straight lines.” in BMVC, vol. 6, 2006, pp. 17–26

    work page 2006

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Texture-based wireframe rendering,

    W. Celes and F. Abraham, “Texture-based wireframe rendering,” in 2010 23rd SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images . IEEE, 2010, pp. 149–155

    2010

  2. [10]

    Fast and versatile texture-based wireframe rendering,

    ——, “Fast and versatile texture-based wireframe rendering,” The Visual Computer, vol. 27, pp. 939–948, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Depth estimation via affinity learned with convolutional spatial propagation network,

    X. Cheng, P. Wang, and R. Yang, “Depth estimation via affinity learned with convolutional spatial propagation network,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 103–119. 8

    2018

  4. [12]

    Deep learning for image and point cloud fusion in autonomous driving: A review,

    Y . Cui, R. Chen, W. Chu, L. Chen, D. Tian, Y . Li, and D. Cao, “Deep learning for image and point cloud fusion in autonomous driving: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 722–739, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Self-supervised sparse- to-dense: Self-supervised depth completion from lidar and monocular camera,

    F. Ma, G. V . Cavalheiro, and S. Karaman, “Self-supervised sparse- to-dense: Self-supervised depth completion from lidar and monocular camera,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 3288–3295

    2019

  6. [14]

    Penet: Towards precise and efficient image guided depth completion,

    M. Hu, S. Wang, B. Li, S. Ning, L. Fan, and X. Gong, “Penet: Towards precise and efficient image guided depth completion,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 656–13 662

    2021

  7. [15]

    Reconstructing the world* in six days*(as captured by the yahoo 100 million image dataset),

    J. Heinly, J. L. Schonberger, E. Dunn, and J.-M. Frahm, “Reconstructing the world* in six days*(as captured by the yahoo 100 million image dataset),” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 3287–3295

    2015

  8. [16]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” in Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    LSD: a Line Segment Detector,

    R. Grompone von Gioi, J. Jakubowicz, J.-M. Morel, and G. Randall, “LSD: a Line Segment Detector,” Image Processing On Line , vol. 2, pp. 35–55, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5201/ipol.2012.gjmr-lsd

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Tp-lsd: Tri-points based line segment detector,

    S. Huang, F. Qin, P. Xiong, N. Ding, Y . He, and X. Liu, “Tp-lsd: Tri-points based line segment detector,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2020, pp. 770–785

    2020

  11. [19]

    Elsd: Efficient line segment detector and descriptor,

    H. Zhang, Y . Luo, F. Qin, Y . He, and X. Liu, “Elsd: Efficient line segment detector and descriptor,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2969–2978

    2021

  12. [20]

    Efficient 3d scene abstraction using line segments,

    M. Hofer, M. Maurer, and H. Bischof, “Efficient 3d scene abstraction using line segments,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding , vol. 157, pp. 167–178, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Sold2: Self-supervised occlusion-aware line description and detection,

    R. Pautrat, J.-T. Lin, V . Larsson, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Sold2: Self-supervised occlusion-aware line description and detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 11 368–11 378

    2021

  14. [22]

    Elsr: Efficient line segment reconstruction with planes and points guidance,

    D. Wei, Y . Wan, Y . Zhang, X. Liu, B. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Elsr: Efficient line segment reconstruction with planes and points guidance,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 15 807–15 815

    2022

  15. [23]

    Deeplsd: Line segment detection and refinement with deep image gradients,

    R. Pautrat, D. Barath, V . Larsson, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Deeplsd: Line segment detection and refinement with deep image gradients,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 17 327–17 336

    2023

  16. [24]

    Pie-net: Parametric inference of point cloud edges,

    X. Wang, Y . Xu, K. Xu, A. Tagliasacchi, B. Zhou, A. Mahdavi-Amiri, and H. Zhang, “Pie-net: Parametric inference of point cloud edges,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 20 167– 20 178, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Pc2wf: 3d wireframe reconstruction from raw point clouds,

    Y . Liu, S. D’Aronco, K. Schindler, and J. D. Wegner, “Pc2wf: 3d wireframe reconstruction from raw point clouds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02766, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Nef: Neural edge fields for 3d parametric curve reconstruction from multi-view images,

    Y . Ye, R. Yi, Z. Gao, C. Zhu, Z. Cai, and K. Xu, “Nef: Neural edge fields for 3d parametric curve reconstruction from multi-view images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 8486–8495

    2023

  19. [27]

    Neat: Distilling 3d wireframes from neural attraction fields,

    N. Xue, B. Tan, Y . Xiao, L. Dong, G.-S. Xia, T. Wu, and Y . Shen, “Neat: Distilling 3d wireframes from neural attraction fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 19 968–19 977

    2024

  20. [28]

    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 Transactions on Graphics , vol. 42, no. 4, July 2023. [Online]. Available: https://repo-sam.inria.fr/fungraph/3d-gaussian-splatting/

    2023

  21. [29]

    A framework for pencil- of-points structure-from-motion,

    A. Bartoli, M. Coquerelle, and P. Sturm, “A framework for pencil- of-points structure-from-motion,” in Computer Vision-ECCV 2004: 8th European Conference on Computer Vision, Prague, Czech Republic, May 11-14, 2004. Proceedings, Part II 8 . Springer, 2004, pp. 28–40

    2004

  22. [30]

    Line-based structure from motion for urban environments,

    G. Schindler, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Dellaert, “Line-based structure from motion for urban environments,” in Third International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization, and Transmission (3DPVT’06) . IEEE, 2006, pp. 846–853

    2006

  23. [31]

    Automatic line matching and 3d reconstruction of buildings from multiple views,

    C. Baillard, C. Schmid, A. Zisserman, and A. Fitzgibbon, “Automatic line matching and 3d reconstruction of buildings from multiple views,” in ISPRS Conference on Automatic Extraction of GIS Objects from Digital Imagery , vol. 32, 1999, pp. 69–80

    1999

  24. [32]

    Moving in stereo: Efficient structure and motion using lines,

    M. Chandraker, J. Lim, and D. Kriegman, “Moving in stereo: Efficient structure and motion using lines,” in 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1741–1748

    2009

  25. [33]

    Structure from motion with line segments under relaxed endpoint constraints,

    B. Micusik and H. Wildenauer, “Structure from motion with line segments under relaxed endpoint constraints,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 124, pp. 65–79, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Structure and motion from line correspon- dences: Representation, projection, initialization and sparse bundle ad- justment,

    L. Zhang and R. Koch, “Structure and motion from line correspon- dences: Representation, projection, initialization and sparse bundle ad- justment,” Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 904–915, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Improving sparse 3d models for man-made environments using line-based 3d reconstruction,

    M. Hofer, M. Maurer, and H. Bischof, “Improving sparse 3d models for man-made environments using line-based 3d reconstruction,” in 2014 2nd International Conference on 3D Vision , vol. 1. IEEE, 2014, pp. 535–542

    2014

  28. [36]

    Line3d: Efficient 3d scene abstraction for the built environment,

    ——, “Line3d: Efficient 3d scene abstraction for the built environment,” in Pattern Recognition: 37th German Conference, GCPR 2015, Aachen, Germany, October 7-10, 2015, Proceedings 37 . Springer, 2015, pp. 237–248

    2015

  29. [37]

    3- d line segment reconstruction with depth maps for photogrammetric mesh refinement in man-made environments,

    T. Fang, M. Chen, H. Hu, W. Li, X. Ge, Q. Zhu, and B. Xu, “3- d line segment reconstruction with depth maps for photogrammetric mesh refinement in man-made environments,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–21, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Multiview reconstruction of space curves,

    Kahl and August, “Multiview reconstruction of space curves,” in Pro- ceedings Ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, 2003, pp. 1017–1024

    2003

  31. [39]

    Curve-based stereo: Figural continuity and curvature,

    L. Robert and O. D. Faugeras, “Curve-based stereo: Figural continuity and curvature,” in Proceedings. 1991 IEEE Computer Society Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE Computer Society, 1991, pp. 57–58

    1991

  32. [40]

    The geometry and matching of lines and curves over multiple views,

    C. Schmid and A. Zisserman, “The geometry and matching of lines and curves over multiple views,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 40, pp. 199–233, 2000

    2000

  33. [41]

    Fast resampling of three-dimensional point clouds via graphs,

    S. Chen, D. Tian, C. Feng, A. Vetro, and J. Kova ˇcevi´c, “Fast resampling of three-dimensional point clouds via graphs,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 666–681, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Efficient ransac for point-cloud shape detection,

    R. Schnabel, R. Wahl, and R. Klein, “Efficient ransac for point-cloud shape detection,” in Computer graphics forum , vol. 26, no. 2. Wiley Online Library, 2007, pp. 214–226

    2007

  35. [43]

    Exploiting global connectivity constraints for reconstruction of 3d line segments from images,

    A. Jain, C. Kurz, T. Thorm ¨ahlen, and H.-P. Seidel, “Exploiting global connectivity constraints for reconstruction of 3d line segments from images,” in 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, 2010, pp. 1586–1593

    2010

  36. [44]

    How- 3d: Holistic 3d wireframe perception from a single image,

    W. Ma, B. Tan, N. Xue, T. Wu, X. Zheng, and G.-S. Xia, “How- 3d: Holistic 3d wireframe perception from a single image,” in 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 596– 605

    2022

  37. [45]

    Learning to reconstruct 3d manhattan wireframes from a single image,

    Y . Zhou, H. Qi, Y . Zhai, Q. Sun, Z. Chen, L.-Y . Wei, and Y . Ma, “Learning to reconstruct 3d manhattan wireframes from a single image,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 7698–7707

    2019

  38. [46]

    Learning to construct 3d building wireframes from 3d line clouds,

    Y . Luo, J. Ren, X. Zhe, D. Kang, Y . Xu, P. Wonka, and L. Bao, “Learning to construct 3d building wireframes from 3d line clouds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11948, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Edgegaussians–3d edge mapping via gaussian splatting,

    K. Chelani, A. Benbihi, T. Sattler, and F. Kahl, “Edgegaussians–3d edge mapping via gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12886, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ewa volume splatting,

    M. Zwicker, H. Pfister, J. Van Baar, and M. Gross, “Ewa volume splatting,” in Proceedings Visualization, 2001. VIS’01. IEEE, 2001, pp. 29–538

    2001

  41. [49]

    Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering,

    P. Hedman, J. Philip, T. Price, J.-M. Frahm, G. Drettakis, and G. Bros- tow, “Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Efficient graph-based image segmentation,

    P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, “Efficient graph-based image segmentation,” International journal of computer vision , vol. 59, pp. 167–181, 2004

    2004

  43. [51]

    Replicator graph clustering

    M. Donoser, “Replicator graph clustering.” in BMVC, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    D. J. Meagher, Octree encoding: A new technique for the representation, manipulation and display of arbitrary 3-d objects by computer . Elec- trical and Systems Engineering Department Rensseiaer Polytechnic . . . , 1980

    1980

  45. [53]

    Geometric modeling using octree encoding,

    D. Meagher, “Geometric modeling using octree encoding,” Computer graphics and image processing , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 129–147, 1982

    1982

  46. [54]

    D. C. Montgomery, E. A. Peck, and G. G. Vining, Introduction to linear regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Applied linear regression,

    S. Weisberg, “Applied linear regression,” 2005. 9

    2005

  48. [56]

    Abc: A big cad model dataset for geometric deep learning,

    S. Koch, A. Matveev, Z. Jiang, F. Williams, A. Artemov, E. Burnaev, M. Alexa, D. Zorin, and D. Panozzo, “Abc: A big cad model dataset for geometric deep learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 9601–9611

    2019

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    Mip-NeRF 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, D. Verbin, P. P. Srinivasan, and P. Hedman, “Mip-NeRF 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 5470–5479

    2022

  51. [59]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,

    A. Knapitsch, J. Park, Q.-Y . Zhou, and V . Koltun, “Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    On benchmarking camera calibration and multi-view stereo for high resolution imagery,

    C. Strecha, W. V on Hansen, L. Van Gool, P. Fua, and U. Thoennessen, “On benchmarking camera calibration and multi-view stereo for high resolution imagery,” in 2008 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Ieee, 2008, pp. 1–8. 10

    2008

Pith tools

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