Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

2DGS-Room: Seed-Guided 2D Gaussian Splatting with Geometric Constrains for High-Fidelity Indoor Scene Reconstruction

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 2DGS-Room introduces seed-guided 2D Gaussian splatting for indoor scene reconstruction, claiming state-of-the-art geometric fidelity on ScanNet and ScanNet++ benchmarks.

desk verdict A plausible seed-guided 2DGS extension with solid ablations, but the SOTA claim needs GaussianRoom in the table before I would trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03428 v1 pith:ZSTX2GID submitted 2024-12-04 cs.CV

Wanting Zhang , Haodong Xiang , Zhichao Liao , Xiansong Lai , Xinghui Li , Long Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords indoorscenereconstruction2DGaussiansplattingseedpointguidancemonoculardepthpriornormalmulti-viewconsistencysurface3D
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 paper attempts to show that indoor scene reconstruction can be made both accurate and fast by replacing neural radiance fields with a structured 2D Gaussian splatting approach. The proposed method, 2DGS-Room, controls where 2D Gaussian primitives are placed and how densely they are distributed using seed points derived from structure-from-motion, then refines geometry with monocular depth and normal priors plus multi-view consistency constraints. On the ScanNet and ScanNet++ datasets, the authors report F-scores of 0.575 and 0.464, the best among compared methods, implying that explicit splat-based surfaces can rival SDF-based neural methods in fidelity while training about 30 times faster. If correct, this gives a practical route to high-quality 3D reconstruction of rooms from ordinary photo collections.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a seed-guided 2D Gaussian representation. Seed points are generated by voxelizing a filtered SfM point cloud, and each seed spawns a set of 2D Gaussian splats whose positions are learnable offsets from the seed. An adaptive growth and pruning strategy adjusts seed density based on gradient magnitude and cumulative opacity. Geometry is further constrained by scale-shift-invariant depth supervision from a monocular depth predictor and L1 plus cosine-similarity normal supervision from a monocular normal estimator. Multi-view consistency is enforced through a homography-based geometric loss and a normalized cross-correlation photometric loss between neighboring views, with a final loss combining these terms.

What would settle it

Measure the per-pixel forward-backward projection error from Eq. (14)-(15) on a scene with strong occlusions and depth discontinuities; if a substantial fraction of pixels (e.g., over 30%) are excluded by the valid-pixel mask, then the geometric consistency loss is only applied where the planar assumption holds, and its contribution would be negligible or harmful on non-planar scenes. A direct comparison of F-score gains from the multi-view term on a near-planar scene versus a heavily occluded scene would reveal this dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that seed-guided initialization and optimization of 2D Gaussian splats, combined with monocular geometric priors and multi-view geometric and photometric consistency, yields indoor surface reconstructions with higher fidelity than existing Gaussian splatting and NeRF baselines. The paper quantifies this with F-scores of 0.575 on ScanNet and 0.464 on ScanNet++, outperforming methods such as 2DGS, SuGaR, PGSR, and NeuS on the same datasets. The contribution is an extension of 2DGS that addresses its weaknesses in indoor scenes: scattered floaters, missed textureless regions, and misaligned surfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-view geometric consistency loss assumes each reference image can be approximated as a single plane with one depth and one normal, which indoor scenes with occlusions and depth jumps violate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, indoor surface reconstruction from RGB-only input can reach high fidelity without SDF-based neural rendering, cutting training time dramatically.
  • Seed-guided distribution of Gaussian primitives provides a practical way to enforce scene structure, reducing floating artifacts that plague unconstrained Gaussian splatting.
  • Monocular depth and normal priors compensate for textureless indoor regions, yielding smoother and more complete walls, floors, and ceilings.
  • Multi-view consistency constraints offer a lightweight refinement that reduces view-dependent inconsistencies in reconstructed meshes.
  • The method's success suggests that explicit primitive-based representations, not just implicit surfaces, can be the foundation for high-quality 3D reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The homography-based geometric consistency loss assumes a single plane per reference image; in non-planar scenes with occlusions and depth discontinuities, this assumption may cause the loss to penalize correct correspondences unless the pixel mask excludes such regions.
  • The dependence on pre-trained monocular depth and normal predictors means the method's upper bound is tied to the accuracy of those priors, so improvements in monocular estimation would likely transfer directly to reconstruction gains.
  • A natural extension would replace the global homography with per-pixel depth-based reprojection using rendered depths, which would handle non-planar geometry more gracefully.
  • The seed-guided growth and pruning strategy could be adapted to other primitive-based representations or to dynamic scenes, where controlling primitive density spatially is equally important.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. 2DGS-Room modifies 2D Gaussian Splatting for indoor surface reconstruction. The method (i) initializes 2D Gaussians from voxelized, outlier-filtered SfM points ("seed points") with learnable offsets, and adjusts seed density during training through gradient-guided growth and opacity-based pruning; (ii) supervises rendered depth and normals with monocular priors (a scale-and-shift-invariant depth loss against Depth Pro predictions, plus L1 and cosine normal losses); and (iii) adds a multi-view loss that warps reference pixels via the plane-induced homography in Eq. (14) and penalizes forward-backward reprojection error (L_geo) and normalized-cross-correlation mismatch (L_pho) against a neighboring view. Training runs for 30k iterations, and meshes are extracted by TSDF fusion of rendered depth maps. On 8 ScanNet and 4 ScanNet++ scenes, the paper reports F-scores of 0.575 and 0.464, the best among the compared methods (NeuS, Neuralangelo, 3DGS, SuGaR, 2DGS, PGSR, RaDe-GS), and the ablation in Table 2 attributes the gains mainly to the seed guidance, depth prior, and normal prior.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: 2DGS, while fast, produces floaters and incomplete geometry in indoor scenes, and the reported gains over the 2DGS baseline on identical benchmarks are large (ScanNet F-score 0.341 to 0.575). The three-way ablation in Table 2 is clean and gives explicit credit to each component, and the seed-guided initialization with learned offsets and adaptive density control is plausible and clearly described. The depth and normal priors are standard but sensibly combined, and evaluation uses the standard ScanNet/ScanNet++ protocols with five geometry metrics. However, the headline "state-of-the-art" claim is comparative and rests on a comparison set (Table 1) that excludes several directly related methods the paper itself cites, so the significance claim is not yet substantiated; and the multi-view consistency loss rests on a homography whose pixel-wise validity is never derived. Neither issue invalidates the method as presented, but both need to be resolved before the significance claim is supported. Reproducibility is also limited by the absence of code, per-scene numbers, and timing measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, §5.1, Table 1] The abstract's claim of 'state-of-the-art performance in indoor scene reconstruction' is a comparative claim, and Table 1 does not support it with the strongest relevant comparisons. Section 2.3 cites GaussianRoom [49], DN-Splatter [48], and GSDF [50] as indoor or geometry-aware Gaussian methods, and the evaluation protocol is said to follow MonoSDF [6] and NeuRIS [5]; none of these five methods appears in Table 1. Because GaussianRoom shares authors with this paper and combines 3DGS with SDF guidance and monocular cues, the same ingredients used here, its omission is particularly consequential: a head-to-head comparison on identical scene splits is the most direct way to verify or falsify the stated SOTA claim. Please add these baselines (or give a principled reason for excluding them), report per-scene results for all methods, and soften the abstract claim if the comparison cannot be completed.
  2. [§4.3, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The geometric consistency loss is not derived. As written, H_rn in Eq. (14) uses quantities N_r and D_r that are not defined as per-pixel maps, so the formula is the homography induced by a single global plane; applied pixel-wise to arbitrary indoor geometry it is exact only for pixels lying on that plane and will penalize correct correspondences at depth discontinuities, occlusions, and curved surfaces. If N_r(p) and D_r(p) are per-pixel values taken from the rendered normal and depth maps, the paper must state this and derive the mapping explicitly, and the exclusion set V_e in Eq. (15) must be specified operationally. Note also that the Table 2 ablation limits both the risk and the claimed benefit of this module: removing the multi-view loss changes the F-score from 0.575 to 0.566 and leaves Accuracy and Completion unchanged at 0.055 and 0.092, so the statement that multi-view constraints 'further enhance reconstruction quality' should be calibrated accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title, Abstract, §1, §2.1, §4.1] Please fix the typos: 'Constrains' in the title and abstract, 'start-of-the-art' in Section 1, 'Expect for the center position' in Section 4.1, and 'V oxel-based' in Section 2.1.
  2. [§5.2] The claim that training is 'approximately 30 times faster' than NeuS/Neuralangelo (over 20 hours) is not supported by any reported wall-clock times; please add a timing table on a common hardware configuration.
  3. [§3, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) is typeset without visible division operators and the phrase 'By homography' is unclear; the formulas for u(x) and v(x) should be restated cleanly so that the ray-splat intersection derivation can be checked.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 reports only dataset-averaged numbers; please report per-scene results and error bars or variance across scenes, since the F-score differences among methods are the load-bearing evidence for the SOTA claim.
  5. [§5.2] The sentence about methods that 'achieve higher Accuracy than 2DGS on the ScanNet++ dataset' is confusing because Accuracy is a distance metric where lower values are better; please rephrase to clarify that NeuS and SuGaR obtain better (lower) Accuracy values.
  6. [§4.4, Supplementary B] The supplement states that the multi-view consistency constraint is applied only after 7,000 iterations, but the main-text optimization section does not mention this schedule; please move this detail into the main text so that the total loss in Eq. (18) is fully specified.
  7. [References] Reference [13] is formatted incorrectly with 'Robust Multiview Stereopsis' appearing as the author name; the citation should be corrected to the actual author list and title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the method is regularized by external monocular priors and standard geometric identities, and its headline claim is evaluated on independent benchmark ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against independent evidence. Seed points are derived from SfM points via filtering and voxelization (Eqs. 7-8), which is an initialization strategy, not a prediction of the evaluation target. Depth and normal supervision (Eqs. 10-13) use pretrained external models [54,56] to constrain rendered maps; these priors are not fitted to the ScanNet/ScanNet++ ground-truth meshes used for evaluation. The multi-view consistency loss (Eqs. 14-17) applies the standard plane-induced homography H_rn = K_n(R_rn - T_rn N_r^T / D_r)K_r^{-1}; this is a geometric identity under the planar assumption, not an equivalence between the loss and the reported F-scores. Although the paper cites GaussianRoom [49], whose authors overlap with the present paper, that citation appears only in related work describing existing Gaussian-splatting methods; it is not used to justify any derivation, uniqueness claim, or fitted parameter. The omission of GaussianRoom from Table 1 is a legitimate comparison-completeness and verifiability concern, but it is not circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark result, and the numbers are not forced by construction. The ablation in Table 2 shows the multi-view term changes F-score only from 0.566 to 0.575, so the main result does not depend on the homography's planarity assumption. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing step is present.

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

The central empirical claim rests on the choice of seed-point representation, on pretrained monocular priors, and on a homography-based consistency loss that is not derived for general 3D geometry. Several key thresholds are unreported.

free parameters (6)
  • outlier confidence threshold epsilon = not reported
    Points with fewer than epsilon feature matches are removed from the SfM point cloud (Eq. 7); value not specified.
  • voxel grid size delta = not reported
    Controls seed point density via voxelization (Eq. 8); not specified in the paper or supplement.
  • growth gradient threshold theta_g = not reported
    Seed growth triggered when the average gradient exceeds theta_g; value and multi-resolution schedule not given.
  • pruning opacity threshold theta_alpha = not reported
    Seeds with cumulative opacity below theta_alpha are pruned; value not given.
  • loss weights lambda_d, lambda_n, lambda_geo, lambda_pho, lambda_grad, lambda_1, lambda_cos = lambda_d=1.0, lambda_n=1.0, lambda_geo=0.05, lambda_pho=0.2, lambda_grad=0.5, lambda_1=0.01, lambda_cos=0.01
    Reported in Sec. 5.1; chosen by hand, not tuned on a validation set.
  • Gaussians per seed k = 10
    Number of 2D Gaussians per seed point, set to 10.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The scene surface can be accurately modeled by a set of 2D oriented Gaussian disks with learnable offsets from seed points.
    Inherited from 2DGS [10]; the paper provides no proof that this representation is sufficient for indoor scenes.
  • domain assumption Pretrained monocular depth model (Depth Pro [54]) and normal estimator [56] provide reliable depth and normal priors for ScanNet and ScanNet++ indoor scenes.
    These priors supervise the geometry; if the priors are systematically wrong for textureless regions, the reconstruction inherits the error.
  • ad hoc to paper The homography H_rn in Eq. (14) is a valid mapping between the reference and neighboring views for all pixels used in L_geo.
    A single homography assumes a planar scene with normal N_r at depth D_r; no justification is given for arbitrary indoor geometry with occlusions and depth discontinuities.
  • domain assumption Photometric consistency measured by NCC on grayscale patches is a valid signal across views under indoor lighting variation.
    NCC assumes local Lambertian appearance; view-dependent effects may violate this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2DGS-Room: Seed-Guided 2D Gaussian Splatting with Geometric Constrains for High-Fidelity Indoor Scene Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSTX2GID

@misc{pith2026241203428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2DGS-Room: Seed-Guided 2D Gaussian Splatting with Geometric Constrains for High-Fidelity Indoor Scene Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSTX2GID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03428}
}
read the original abstract

The reconstruction of indoor scenes remains challenging due to the inherent complexity of spatial structures and the prevalence of textureless regions. Recent advancements in 3D Gaussian Splatting have improved novel view synthesis with accelerated processing but have yet to deliver comparable performance in surface reconstruction. In this paper, we introduce 2DGS-Room, a novel method leveraging 2D Gaussian Splatting for high-fidelity indoor scene reconstruction. Specifically, we employ a seed-guided mechanism to control the distribution of 2D Gaussians, with the density of seed points dynamically optimized through adaptive growth and pruning mechanisms. To further improve geometric accuracy, we incorporate monocular depth and normal priors to provide constraints for details and textureless regions respectively. Additionally, multi-view consistency constraints are employed to mitigate artifacts and further enhance reconstruction quality. Extensive experiments on ScanNet and ScanNet++ datasets demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in indoor scene reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2DGS-Room achieves high-fidelity geometric reconstructions for indoor scenes. We introduce seed points to guide the distribution of 2D Gaussians coupled with geometric constraints, leading to clearer structures and more accurate geometry. Abstract The reconstruction of indoor scenes remains challeng￾ing due to the inherent complexity of spatial structures and the prevalence of textureless regions. Recent advancement… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of 2DGS-Room. Given multi-view posed images, we improve 2DGS to achieve high-fidelity geometric reconstruction for indoor scenes. (a) Starting from an SfM-derived point cloud, we generate a set of seed points through voxelization, establishing a stable foundation for guiding the distribution and density of 2D Gaussians. We further introduce an adaptive growth and pruning strategy to optimize seed points. (b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ground truth scene surface and Gaussian primitives distribution. Compared with 3DGS and 2DGS, our method sig￾nificantly reduces scattered floaters in the non-surface areas, ben￾efitting from our designed structured geometric constraints. We utilize a gradient-guided growth strategy to increase seed point density adaptively, especially in areas with high structural complexity or fine details. For each voxel, we compu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative reconstruction comparisons. For each indoor scene, the first row is the top view of the whole room, and the second row is the details of the masked region. Baselines. We compare our approach with several state￾of-the-art methods, covering both neural volume…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the qualitative results. These allow us to iso￾late the impact of key elements on the overall reconstruction quality. Method Acc.↓ Comp.↓ Prec.↑ Recall↑ F-score↑ w/o Seed 0.128 0.152 0.336 0.284 0.307 w/o Depth 0.084 0.139 0.510 0.386 0.438 w/o Normal 0.066 0.102…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional qualitative results of ablation study. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional qualitative reconstruction comparison. For each indoor scene, the first row is the top view of the whole room and the second row is the details of the masked region. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Rendering comparison on the ScanNet dataset (scene0580 and scene0050). 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rendering comparison on the ScanNet dataset (scene0085 and scene0617). 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Rendering comparison on the ScanNet++ dataset (8d563fc2cc and 41b00feddb). 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Confidence matters: Leveraging Multi-view Geometric Priors for GS-based Reconstruction

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Confidence-weighted multi-view geometric priors from VGGT improve 3D Gaussian splatting reconstruction on specular objects, cutting normal MAE on Shiny Blender from 3.23 to 1.23 degrees.

  2. Proxy-GS: Unified Occlusion Priors for Training and Inference in Structured 3D Gaussian Splatting

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A proxy mesh rendered through hardware rasterization provides a cheap occlusion depth prior that culls hidden anchors at inference and guides densification at training, giving Octree-GS-like MLP splatting a 3 to 4x sp...

  3. OmniIndoor3D: Comprehensive Indoor 3D Reconstruction

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    OmniIndoor3D jointly optimizes appearance, geometry, and panoptic labels in a single set of 3D Gaussians initialized from RGB-D camera depth, reporting state-of-the-art numbers on ScanNet and ScanNet++.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [49]

    Gaussian- room: Improving 3d gaussian splatting with sdf guidance and monocular cues for indoor scene reconstruction

    Haodong Xiang, Xinghui Li, Xiansong Lai, Wanting Zhang, Zhichao Liao, Kai Cheng, and Xueping Liu. Gaussian- room: Improving 3d gaussian splatting with sdf guidance and monocular cues for indoor scene reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19671, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  2. [48]

    Dn-splatter: Depth and normal priors for gaussian splatting and meshing

    Matias Turkulainen, Xuqian Ren, Iaroslav Melekhov, Otto Seiskari, Esa Rahtu, and Juho Kannala. Dn-splatter: Depth and normal priors for gaussian splatting and meshing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17822, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  3. [50]

    Gsdf: 3dgs meets sdf for improved rendering and reconstruction

    Mulin Yu, Tao Lu, Linning Xu, Lihan Jiang, Yuanbo Xiangli, and Bo Dai. Gsdf: 3dgs meets sdf for improved rendering and reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16964, 2024. 3 10

    arXiv 2024

  4. [6]

    Monosdf: Exploring monocu- lar geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruc- tion

    Zehao Yu, Songyou Peng, Michael Niemeyer, Torsten Sat- tler, and Andreas Geiger. Monosdf: Exploring monocu- lar geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruc- tion. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:25018–25032, 2022. 2, 6

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Neuris: Neural reconstruction of indoor scenes using normal priors

    Jiepeng Wang, Peng Wang, Xiaoxiao Long, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, Lingjie Liu, and Wenping Wang. Neuris: Neural reconstruction of indoor scenes using normal priors. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 139–155. Springer, 2022. 2, 6

    work page 2022

  6. [1]

    Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Johannes L Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Nether- lands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14, pages 501–518. Springer, 2016. 1, 2

    work page 2016

  7. [2]

    Ef- ficient deep learning for stereo matching

    Wenjie Luo, Alexander G Schwing, and Raquel Urtasun. Ef- ficient deep learning for stereo matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 5695–5703, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  8. [3]

    Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Yao Yao, Zixin Luo, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, and Long Quan. Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vi- sion (ECCV), pages 767–783, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

Show all 60 references
  1. [4]

    Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. NeurIPS, 2021. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2021

  2. [7]

    Edge-aware neural im- plicit surface reconstruction

    Xinghui Li, Yikang Ding, Jia Guo, Xiansong Lai, Shihao Ren, Wensen Feng, and Long Zeng. Edge-aware neural im- plicit surface reconstruction. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) , pages 1643–

    2023

  3. [8]

    Fine-detailed neural indoor scene reconstruction using multi-level importance sampling and multi-view con- sistency

    Xinghui Li, Yuchen Ji, Xiansong Lai, Wanting Zhang, and Long Zeng. Fine-detailed neural indoor scene reconstruction using multi-level importance sampling and multi-view con- sistency. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3477–3483. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  4. [9]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4):1–14, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  5. [10]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accu- rate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accu- rate radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17888, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Patchmatch: A randomized correspon- dence algorithm for structural image editing

    Connelly Barnes, Eli Shechtman, Adam Finkelstein, and Dan B Goldman. Patchmatch: A randomized correspon- dence algorithm for structural image editing. ACM Trans. Graph., 28(3):24, 2009. 2

    2009

  7. [12]

    Gipuma: Massively parallel multi-view stereo reconstruc- tion

    Silvano Galliani, Katrin Lasinger, and Konrad Schindler. Gipuma: Massively parallel multi-view stereo reconstruc- tion. Publikationen der Deutschen Gesellschaft f ¨ur Pho- togrammetrie, Fernerkundung und Geoinformation e. V , 25 (361-369):2, 2016

    2016

  8. [13]

    Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis

    Robust Multiview Stereopsis. Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE , 32(8), 2010. 2

    2010

  9. [14]

    Screened poisson sur- face reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan and Hugues Hoppe. Screened poisson sur- face reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 32(3):1–13, 2013. 2

    2013

  10. [15]

    A probabilistic framework for space carving

    Adrian Broadhurst, Tom W Drummond, and Roberto Cipolla. A probabilistic framework for space carving. In Proceedings eighth IEEE international conference on com- puter vision. ICCV 2001, pages 388–393. IEEE, 2001. 2

    2001

  11. [16]

    Poxels: Probabilistic voxelized volume reconstruction

    Jeremy S De Bonet and Paul Viola. Poxels: Probabilistic voxelized volume reconstruction. In Proceedings of Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), page 2. Cite- seer, 1999

    1999

  12. [17]

    Photorealistic scene reconstruction by voxel coloring

    Steven M Seitz and Charles R Dyer. Photorealistic scene reconstruction by voxel coloring. International journal of computer vision, 35:151–173, 1999

    1999

  13. [18]

    Dist: Rendering deep implicit signed distance function with differentiable sphere tracing

    Shaohui Liu, Yinda Zhang, Songyou Peng, Boxin Shi, Marc Pollefeys, and Zhaopeng Cui. Dist: Rendering deep implicit signed distance function with differentiable sphere tracing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2019–2028...

    2019

  14. [19]

    Demon: Depth and motion network for learning monocular stereo

    Benjamin Ummenhofer, Huizhong Zhou, Jonas Uhrig, Niko- laus Mayer, Eddy Ilg, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Thomas Brox. Demon: Depth and motion network for learning monocular stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5038–5047,

  15. [20]

    Learning to com- pare image patches via convolutional neural networks

    Sergey Zagoruyko and Nikos Komodakis. Learning to com- pare image patches via convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4353–4361, 2015

    2015

  16. [21]

    Octnetfusion: Learning depth fusion from data

    Gernot Riegler, Ali Osman Ulusoy, Horst Bischof, and An- dreas Geiger. Octnetfusion: Learning depth fusion from data. In 2017 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 57–66. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  17. [22]

    Deepmvs: Learning multi- view stereopsis

    Po-Han Huang, Kevin Matzen, Johannes Kopf, Narendra Ahuja, and Jia-Bin Huang. Deepmvs: Learning multi- view stereopsis. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2821–2830, 2018

    2018

  18. [23]

    Recurrent mvsnet for high-resolution multi-view stereo depth inference

    Yao Yao, Zixin Luo, Shiwei Li, Tianwei Shen, Tian Fang, and Long Quan. Recurrent mvsnet for high-resolution multi-view stereo depth inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5525–5534, 2019

    2019

  19. [24]

    Fast-mvsnet: Sparse-to- dense multi-view stereo with learned propagation and gauss- newton refinement

    Zehao Yu and Shenghua Gao. Fast-mvsnet: Sparse-to- dense multi-view stereo with learned propagation and gauss- newton refinement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1949–1958, 2020

    1949

  20. [25]

    Visibility-aware multi-view stereo network

    Jingyang Zhang, Yao Yao, Shiwei Li, Zixin Luo, and Tian Fang. Visibility-aware multi-view stereo network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07928, 2020. 2

    2008 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Nerf: 9 Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: 9 Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  22. [27]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pag...

  23. [28]

    Point- nerf: Point-based neural radiance fields

    Qiangeng Xu, Zexiang Xu, Julien Philip, Sai Bi, Zhixin Shu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Ulrich Neumann. Point- nerf: Point-based neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5438–5448, 2022

    2022

  24. [29]

    Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19697–19705, 2023. 2

    2023

  25. [30]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  26. [31]

    Neural sparse voxel fields

    Lingjie Liu, Jiatao Gu, Kyaw Zaw Lin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Christian Theobalt. Neural sparse voxel fields. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:15651–15663, 2020

    2020

  27. [32]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5501–5510, 2022

    2022

  28. [33]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 333–350. Springer, 2022

    2022

  29. [34]

    Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction

    Zhaoshuo Li, Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Russell H Tay- lor, Mathias Unberath, Ming-Yu Liu, and Chen-Hsuan Lin. Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 8456–8465, ...

    2023

  30. [35]

    Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12882– 12891, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [36]

    Nerfingmvs: Guided optimization of neural radiance fields for indoor multi-view stereo

    Yi Wei, Shaohui Liu, Yongming Rao, Wang Zhao, Jiwen Lu, and Jie Zhou. Nerfingmvs: Guided optimization of neural radiance fields for indoor multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 5610–5619, 2021. 2

    2021

  32. [37]

    Reg- nerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs

    Michael Niemeyer, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Andreas Geiger, and Noha Radwan. Reg- nerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

    2022

  33. [38]

    Sparsenerf: Distilling depth ranking for few-shot novel view synthesis

    Guangcong Wang, Zhaoxi Chen, Chen Change Loy, and Zi- wei Liu. Sparsenerf: Distilling depth ranking for few-shot novel view synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9065–9076,

  34. [39]

    Corresnerf: Image correspondence priors for neural radiance fields

    Yixing Lao, Xiaogang Xu, Xihui Liu, Hengshuang Zhao, et al. Corresnerf: Image correspondence priors for neural radiance fields. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [40]

    Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learn- ing implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision

    Michael Niemeyer, Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, and Andreas Geiger. Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learn- ing implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 3504–3515, 2020. 2

    2020

  36. [41]

    Unisurf: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction

    Michael Oechsle, Songyou Peng, and Andreas Geiger. Unisurf: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5589–5599, 2021. 2

    2021

  37. [42]

    Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance

    Lior Yariv, Yoni Kasten, Dror Moran, Meirav Galun, Matan Atzmon, Basri Ronen, and Yaron Lipman. Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 33:2492–2502, 2020. 2

    2020

  38. [43]

    V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 34:4805–4815, 2021. 2

    2021

  39. [44]

    Geo-neus: Geometry-consistent neural implicit surfaces learning for multi-view reconstruction

    Qiancheng Fu, Qingshan Xu, Yew Soon Ong, and Wenbing Tao. Geo-neus: Geometry-consistent neural implicit surfaces learning for multi-view reconstruction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3403–3416, 2022. 2

    2022

  40. [45]

    Critical regu- larizations for neural surface reconstruction in the wild

    Jingyang Zhang, Yao Yao, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, David McKinnon, Yanghai Tsin, and Long Quan. Critical regu- larizations for neural surface reconstruction in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6270–6279, 2022. 2

    2022

  41. [46]

    Neural 3d scene reconstruction with the manhattan-world assumption

    Haoyu Guo, Sida Peng, Haotong Lin, Qianqian Wang, Guofeng Zhang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Neural 3d scene reconstruction with the manhattan-world assumption. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5511–5520, 2022. 2

    2022

  42. [47]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In CVPR, pages 4104–4113, 2016. 3

    2016

  43. [51]

    Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh recon- struction and high-quality mesh rendering

    Antoine Gu ´edon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh recon- struction and high-quality mesh rendering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12775, 2023. 3, 6, 7, 8, 2

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Pgsr: Planar-based gaussian splatting for efficient and high-fidelity surface reconstruction

    Danpeng Chen, Hai Li, Weicai Ye, Yifan Wang, Weijian Xie, Shangjin Zhai, Nan Wang, Haomin Liu, Hujun Bao, and Guofeng Zhang. Pgsr: Planar-based gaussian splatting for efficient and high-fidelity surface reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06521, 2024. 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rade-gs: Rasterizing depth in gaussian splatting

    Baowen Zhang, Chuan Fang, Rakesh Shrestha, Yixun Liang, Xiaoxiao Long, and Ping Tan. Rade-gs: Rasterizing depth in gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01467, 2024. 3, 6, 7, 8, 2

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Depth pro: Sharp monocular metric depth in less than a second

    Aleksei Bochkovskii, Ama ¨el Delaunoy, Hugo Germain, Marcel Santos, Yichao Zhou, Stephan R Richter, and Vladlen Koltun. Depth pro: Sharp monocular metric depth in less than a second. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02073, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Katrin Lasinger, David Hafner, Konrad Schindler, and Vladlen Koltun. Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(3):1623–1637, 2020. 5

    2020

  48. [56]

    Es- timating and exploiting the aleatoric uncertainty in surface normal estimation

    Gwangbin Bae, Ignas Budvytis, and Roberto Cipolla. Es- timating and exploiting the aleatoric uncertainty in surface normal estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13137–13146,

  49. [57]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes

    Angela Dai, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5828–5839, 2017. 6, 1

    2017

  50. [58]

    Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d in- door scenes

    Chandan Yeshwanth, Yueh-Cheng Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d in- door scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 12–22, 2023. 6, 1

    2023

  51. [59]

    Fast normalized cross- correlation

    Jae-Chern Yoo and Tae Hee Han. Fast normalized cross- correlation. Circuits, systems and signal processing, 28:819– 843, 2009. 6

    2009

  52. [60]

    A volumetric method for building complex models from range images

    Brian Curless and Marc Levoy. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. InProceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 303–312, 1996. 6 11 2DGS-Room: Seed-Guided 2D Gaussian Splatting with Geometric C...

    1996

Pith tools

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