Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

LLaVA-4D: Embedding SpatioTemporal Prompt into LMMs for 4D Scene Understanding

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 that adding explicit time coordinates to a visual prompt lets a large multimodal model understand dynamic 3D scenes instead of only static ones.

desk verdict A clean architecture for 4D scene understanding in LMMs, but the headline temporal results rest on a self-built benchmark and unvalidated dynamic depth; deserves peer review with conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12253 v1 pith:ZSVM722E submitted 2025-05-18 cs.CV

Hanyu Zhou , Gim Hee Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 4Dsceneunderstandinglargemultimodalmodelspatiotemporalpromptcoordinateencodingvision-languagealignmentdynamicvisualgroundinginstructiontuning
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 tries to show that a large multimodal model can understand dynamic 3D scenes when its visual representation carries a spatiotemporal prompt: a world coordinate plus a timestamp for every observed point. To build that prompt, LLaVA-4D Fourier-encodes the 3D position, scales the time encoding by optical flow, and fuses the result into visual features that are disentangled into spatial and temporal streams. On the new Chat4D benchmark, the model reports object coordinates at multiple timestamps and reasons about likely future motion, attaining 58.9 spatial accuracy and 54.6 temporal accuracy against 3D LMM baselines. The paper also introduces Chat4D, a 2D/3D/4D instruction-tuning dataset. If the argument is right, explicit time in the coordinate prompt, not more training data, is the step that takes LMMs from static scene description to dynamic scene reasoning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatiotemporal prompt $p_{4D} = w_p \cdot [\mathrm{PE}(x,y,z) \| \mathrm{TE}(t)\cdot\beta]$, built from Fourier position encoding and motion-scaled Fourier time encoding; it is the only mechanism that differentiates a moving object from a static background at the same 3D location. It is injected through a spatiotemporal-disentangled vision embedding, where cross-view correlations form spatial features and adjacent-frame correlations form temporal features, and through cross-attention fusion that learns per-coordinate weights. The same encoding is applied to textual coordinate tokens to align language with the 4D-aware visual tokens. Together these components carry the argument that time must be embedded as a first-class coordinate, not inferred from captions.

What would settle it

On a dynamic multi-view video with independently measured object trajectories, compare the model's per-timestamp coordinates for fast-moving objects against the measured positions; if the reported temporal coordinates deviate by roughly the size of the MVS depth error on those regions, the dynamic-understanding claim fails because it is the static-scene geometry doing the work rather than the 4D prompt.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that existing 3D LMMs fail on dynamic scenes because they embed fixed 3D positions as spatial prompts, while LLaVA-4D embeds a dynamic-aware 4D coordinate tensor $[x,y,z,t]$ as a spatiotemporal prompt and disentangles multi-view video features into spatial and temporal components before fusion. Coordinates are obtained by unprojecting each frame with SfM camera poses and MVS depth; position uses learnable Fourier features and time uses Fourier features scaled by a softmax of optical flow, so moving objects receive a different temporal signature from the static background. Cross-attention fuses the prompt into the disentangled features, the same position/time encoding is applied to textual coordinates, and the resulting tokens are aligned for the LLM. The paper reports that this design outperforms all compared 3D LMMs on 3D benchmarks and on Chat4D, and shows that the spatiotemporal prompt extends to semantic and action prompts.

Load-bearing premise

The 4D coordinates are produced by unprojecting each frame with structure-from-motion camera poses and multi-view stereo depth, and multi-view stereo assumes a static world, so depth on moving objects is likely wrong and every coordinate claim built on it inherits that error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 4D-prompted LMM can answer time-indexed questions, such as where an object was at $t_1$ and $t_2$, and can report both positions in one response.
  • Because the prompt separates spatial and temporal streams, dynamic objects are represented distinctly from backgrounds, which is what yields the reported gains on grounding and captioning.
  • The coordinate-aligned language embedding reduces the chance the LLM misreads coordinate values in instructions, improving spatial accuracy even on static 3D benchmarks.
  • The prompt plug-in is extensible: adding semantic and action masks as spatiotemporal attributes supports segmentation and action-understanding tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not run is to swap MVS depth for an object-aware depth source on moving regions; if temporal accuracy survives the swap, the prompt mechanism is robust, and if not, the dynamic-world gains are partly an artifact of static-scene geometry.
  • The same recipe could transfer to embodied settings where time is action time and the motion field is the agent's own trajectory; the extensibility experiment with action masks is a step in that direction.
  • The motion-scaled time encoding predicts that temporal grounding should degrade smoothly with object speed; this is measurable on a speed-sorted subset of any dynamic benchmark.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLaVA-4D, a large multimodal model for 4D scene understanding that embeds a spatiotemporal prompt into visual representations for LMMs. The prompt is constructed by encoding 3D coordinates [x, y, z] and time t with learnable Fourier features and an optical-flow-derived motion term (Eqs. 4-6). Visual features from multi-view videos are disentangled into spatial and temporal components via cross-view and adjacent-time correlations (Eqs. 7-8), then fused with the 4D coordinate embedding through cross-attention before projection into the LLM. The authors also introduce Chat4D, a 2D/3D/4D vision-language dataset for instruction fine-tuning, and report results on Scan2Cap, ScanQA, ScanRef, Multi3DRefer, and their own Chat4D benchmark. They claim state-of-the-art performance, including Chat4D spatial grounding accuracy SAcc 58.9 and temporal accuracy TAcc 54.6, and they state that this is the first general vision-language LMM for 4D scene understanding.

Significance. The architecture is coherent, and the ablation tables are internally consistent with the design narrative. The idea of using time-indexed coordinates as a prompt and explicitly separating spatial and temporal visual features is a plausible and potentially transferable design. If the 4D evaluation were independently validated, the paper would represent a significant step: it is one of the first attempts to give an LMM temporally grounded spatial reasoning, and it reports consistent gains on external 3D benchmarks (Scan2Cap, ScanQA, ScanRef, Multi3DRefer), which partly support the static/spatial component. However, the headline 4D claims rest entirely on a self-created benchmark whose annotations come from the same geometric pipeline used for training, and the paper reports no human validation, no independent reconstruction of test scenes, and no variance estimates. The external 3D results are real but do not validate temporal/dynamic understanding. The central novelty therefore needs stronger evaluation evidence. The paper does not mention code, model weights, or dataset release, which limits reproducibility for the new benchmark.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5.1, Table 1] The headline 4D results (SAcc 58.9, TAcc 54.6) are measured on Chat4D, a benchmark the authors construct from the same data distribution and the same SfM/MVS geometry used to create the training targets in Eq. (4). Because the annotation pipeline is also the evaluation pipeline, the model can learn to reproduce systematic errors of that pipeline and appear to gain 4D understanding without actually having it. The paper reports no human validation of the generated 4D annotations, no independent reconstruction of the test scenes, and no error bars across random seeds. Please add a human-evaluated subset or an independently annotated test set, and report variance over multiple training runs.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (4)] The coordinate construction treats MVS depth as per-frame ground truth, but MVS assumes a static scene and is known to be unreliable on moving objects. Since both the training labels and the S/TAcc spatial ground truth are derived from this same depth, errors on dynamic regions propagate directly into the claims about temporal understanding. The Limitation paragraph only mentions motion blur on fast-moving objects and does not quantify depth or pose errors on dynamic regions. Please report depth error and coordinate consistency separately for static and dynamic regions, or provide an alternative validation of moving-object coordinates.
  3. [Table 1 and Sec. 5.1] The statement that all methods are trained on the same evaluation benchmark via instruction fine-tuning is underspecified for the 4D columns. The 3D baseline methods have no spatiotemporal prompt and no time-indexed coordinate encoding, so it is unclear how they were instructed to produce answers at multiple timestamps and how TAcc was computed for them. Without a precise protocol for adapting each baseline to the 4D task, the large TAcc gap may reflect an unfair comparison rather than genuine 4D understanding. Please specify the exact instruction format, output parsing, and training recipe used for every baseline, and consider adding a strong baseline that receives the same 4D coordinate prompt.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The model name is rendered inconsistently ('LLaV A-4D' in the title and header, 'LLaVA-4D' in the abstract), and Section 3.1 contains the typo 'positon'.
  2. [Eqs. (6) and (9)] Equation (6) uses softmax over optical flow, Φ(vel), but it is not specified over which dimension the softmax is applied or how a vector-valued flow modulates the scalar time encoding. Equation (9) uses MLPobj without defining it.
  3. [Figs. 3 and 6] The clustering evidence for the discriminability of spatial and temporal features is qualitative; please supplement it with a quantitative measure such as cluster separation or a classification accuracy of the disentangled features.
  4. [Sec. 2] The related work cites LLaVA-ST but does not compare with it or discuss how the proposed temporal encoding differs from that line of work.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] No code, model weights, or dataset release is mentioned; given that the benchmark is new, releasing the annotation pipeline or a sample of annotated examples would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline Chat4D SAcc/TAcc gains are measured on the same benchmark used for instruction fine-tuning, so the 4D superiority claim reports fit to a self-generated annotation pipeline rather than an independent 4D prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1 (Experiment Setup), Section 4.2 Stage 3, Table 1]
    "For a fair comparison, all methods are trained on the same evaluation benchmark via instruction fine-tuning."

    The paper's headline 4D results are Chat4D SAcc and TAcc in Table 1. Section 4.2 Stage 3 says the model is fine-tuned on '4D vision-language data of Chat4D', and Section 5.1 says all methods are 'trained on the same evaluation benchmark'. No held-out or independently verified test split is described. The reported Chat4D metrics therefore measure how well the model reproduces the benchmark's self-generated labels (produced by 3D detection and GPT-4V on the same SfM/MVS coordinate geometry used in Eq. 4) on the training distribution. The claim of superior 4D understanding is thus a fit to the benchmark, not a prediction validated against external 4D ground truth.

full rationale

The model architecture itself is not equation-level circular: Eq. 4 defines coordinates from SfM/MVS, Eqs. 5-6 are Fourier-style encodings, Eqs. 7-9 are correlation-based disentanglement and cross-attention fusion, and Eq. 10 is a language-side coordinate encoding. None of these reduces to a fitted parameter or to the paper's own conclusions. There is also no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The external 3D benchmarks (Scan2Cap, ScanQA, ScanRef, Multi3DRefer) provide partly independent evidence for the spatial component. However, the central 4D claim rests on Chat4D, and the paper explicitly trains on the same benchmark it uses for evaluation. Because the benchmark labels are generated from the same multi-view geometry and detection pipeline that supplies the model's coordinate inputs, the SAcc/TAcc gains are best read as alignment with the annotation pipeline rather than verified 4D understanding. The limitation section only mentions motion blur on fast-moving objects and does not validate coordinate accuracy on dynamic regions, so the pseudo-ground-truth reliability remains unexamined. This is a genuine evaluation-loop circularity, but it is confined to the 4D benchmark; the derivation equations are self-contained, so I do not assign a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three categories of outside support. It assumes a standard multi-view capture setup with poses and depth, it assumes that cross-view and adjacent-frame correlations implement meaningful spatial and temporal semantics, and it relies on machine-generated 4D supervision that is not independently validated. These are domain assumptions rather than formal axioms; none are proven in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • W_r (learnable Fourier feature matrix) = trained weights, values not reported
    Appears in Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 for position and time encoding; these weights define the spatiotemporal prompt and are fitted during training on Chat4D.
  • Learnable projection and fusion weights (w_p, w_q, w_k, w_v, alpha gate, MLPs) = trained weights, values not reported
    Used in Eq. 1, Eq. 3, and Eq. 9 to fuse 4D coordinates with visual features and project into language space; all are fitted during training.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Multi-view videos come with synchronized timestamps, known camera poses from SfM, and per-view depth from MVS.
    Eq. 4 unprojects pixels using P, K, and D; without reliable pose and depth the 4D coordinates are wrong. The paper assumes these are available for all training and test scenes.
  • domain assumption MVS depth is sufficiently accurate for dynamic objects despite the static-scene assumption of MVS.
    The 4D coordinate tensor is built for every frame including moving objects. MVS was designed for static geometry, and the paper does not validate depth accuracy on moving regions.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-view correlation (Eq. 7) and adjacent-time correlation (Eq. 8) separate spatial appearance from temporal motion in learned visual features.
    This is the central representational assumption of the spatiotemporal-disentangled embedding. It is motivated by a qualitative clustering figure (Fig. 3) rather than a formal guarantee.
  • domain assumption Language annotations and coordinates in Chat4D generated by 3D detectors and GPT-4V/text-only GPT are accurate enough to serve as supervision.
    The 4D instruction data is generated automatically; errors in detection or hallucinated text would be learned as ground truth. No human validation rate is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLaVA-4D: Embedding SpatioTemporal Prompt into LMMs for 4D Scene Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSVM722E

@misc{pith2026250512253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLaVA-4D: Embedding SpatioTemporal Prompt into LMMs for 4D Scene Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSVM722E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12253}
}
read the original abstract

Despite achieving significant progress in 2D image understanding, large multimodal models (LMMs) struggle in the physical world due to the lack of spatial representation. Typically, existing 3D LMMs mainly embed 3D positions as fixed spatial prompts within visual features to represent the scene. However, these methods are limited to understanding the static background and fail to capture temporally varying dynamic objects. In this paper, we propose LLaVA-4D, a general LMM framework with a novel spatiotemporal prompt for visual representation in 4D scene understanding. The spatiotemporal prompt is generated by encoding 3D position and 1D time into a dynamic-aware 4D coordinate embedding. Moreover, we demonstrate that spatial and temporal components disentangled from visual features are more effective in distinguishing the background from objects. This motivates embedding the 4D spatiotemporal prompt into these features to enhance the dynamic scene representation. By aligning visual spatiotemporal embeddings with language embeddings, LMMs gain the ability to understand both spatial and temporal characteristics of static background and dynamic objects in the physical world. Additionally, we construct a 4D vision-language dataset with spatiotemporal coordinate annotations for instruction fine-tuning LMMs. Extensive experiments have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method across different tasks in 4D scene understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12253 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of 3D and 4D LMM paradigms for physical world understanding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our LLaVA-4D consists of three stages: 1) 4D coordinate encoding. Encode 3D position and 1D time with optical flow. 2) Vision embedding. Disentangle visual features into spatiotemporal features and embed the encoded 4D coordinates via cross-attention fusion. 3) Language embedding. Align textual position and time with the fused vision embedding for 4D scene understanding. 3) Coordinate-Aligned Language Embedding (cf.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Feature distribution of static background and dynamic object in a 4D dynamic scene. Visual features of dynamic objects appear scattered while static backgrounds are clustered. In contrast, spatiotemporal features show clear discrimination between objects and background. have different motion patterns and thus we add motion information into the temporal encoding: pt = 1/ √ d [cos(tW⊤ r ∥ sin(tW⊤ r ))] · (1 + Φ(vel)),… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our dataset and training pipeline. (a) Chat4D dataset includes 2D, 3D, and 4D vision-language training sets for dense captioning, QA, and visual grounding. (b) Three-stage training: stages 1-2 use 2D/3D data for initialization; stage 3 uses 4D data for inst…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of LMMs on 4D scene understanding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Feature visualization at different stages. Spatiotemporal disentanglement improves the discriminability of background and objects, which are further separated by 4D coordinate embedding. [21], Grounded 3D-LLM [57], PQ3D [58], LLaVA-3D [11], and Video-3D LLM [23]. For a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of spatiotemporal prompt extended to other spatiotemporal vision tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.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. ArtAnno: Annotating Implicit Semantics in Artworks through LLM Agent-Driven Bidirectional Human-AI Augmentation

    cs.HC 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM-agent artwork annotation system that combines proactive label suggestions with interaction-driven skill learning reported roughly 50% faster annotation and higher label agreement in a 12-participant study.

  2. DynTrace: Tracking Dynamic Object Evidence for 4D Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in MLLMs

    cs.CV 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training-free pipeline that feeds MLLMs reprojected motion arrows plus a structured trace graph lifts 4D spatio-temporal QA accuracy on three benchmarks.

  3. PySeizure: A single machine learning classifier framework to detect seizures in diverse datasets

    cs.LG 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A unified EEG seizure-detection framework with standardized preprocessing and majority voting reaches within-dataset AUC 0.86-0.90 and cross-dataset AUC 0.615-0.762 across CHB-MIT and TUSZ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, David Moore, Michael Needham, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:23716–23732, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pam Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Contrastive learning for speech translation

    Yujia Gong, Changhan Wang, Yun Tang Wang, and Jiatao Gu. Contrastive learning for speech translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Git: A generative image-to-text transformer for vision and language

    Jianfeng Wang, Jianwei Yang, Xiaowei Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. Git: A generative image-to-text transformer for vision and language. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 18002–18014, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

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

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 12888–12900. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 19730–19742. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mdetr: Modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding

    Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Ishan Misra, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Carion, and Karteek Alahari. Mdetr: Modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1780–1790, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model

    Mandy Chen, Adams Wei Yu, Hamid Palangi, Paul Smolensky, Yinfei Yang, Xiaowei Yuan, Kathy Meier- Hellstern, Jianfeng Gao, Ed Chi, et al. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07892, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    3d-llm: Injecting the 3d world into large language models

    Yining Hong, Haoyu Zhen, Peihao Chen, Shuhong Zheng, Yilun Du, Zhenfang Chen, and Chuang Gan. 3d-llm: Injecting the 3d world into large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:20482–20494, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Llava-3d: A simple yet effective pathway to empowering lmms with 3d-awareness

    Chenming Zhu, Tai Wang, Wenwei Zhang, Jiangmiao Pang, and Xihui Liu. Llava-3d: A simple yet effective pathway to empowering lmms with 3d-awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18125, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  5. [13]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

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

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Minigpt-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning

    Jun Chen, Deyao Zhu, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, Zechun Liu, Pengchuan Zhang, Raghuraman Krish- namoorthi, Vikas Chandra, Yunyang Xiong, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:23...

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Vila: On pre- training for visual language models

    Ji Lin, Hongxu Yin, Wei Ping, Pavlo Molchanov, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Song Han. Vila: On pre- training for visual language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 26689–26699, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 26296–26306, 2024. 10

    2024

  10. [18]

    Llava-st: A multimodal large language model for fine-grained spatial-temporal understanding

    Hongyu Li, Jinyu Chen, Ziyu Wei, Shaofei Huang, Tianrui Hui, Jialin Gao, Xiaoming Wei, and Si Liu. Llava-st: A multimodal large language model for fine-grained spatial-temporal understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08282, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chat-3d: Data-efficiently tuning large language model for universal dialogue of 3d scenes

    Zehan Wang, Haifeng Huang, Yang Zhao, Ziang Zhang, and Zhou Zhao. Chat-3d: Data-efficiently tuning large language model for universal dialogue of 3d scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08769, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding reasoning and planning

    Sijin Chen, Xin Chen, Chi Zhang, Mingsheng Li, Gang Yu, Hao Fei, Hongyuan Zhu, Jiayuan Fan, and Tao Chen. Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding reasoning and planning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2024

  13. [21]

    3d-llava: Towards generalist 3d lmms with omni superpoint transformer

    Jiajun Deng, Tianyu He, Li Jiang, Tianyu Wang, Feras Dayoub, and Ian Reid. 3d-llava: Towards generalist 3d lmms with omni superpoint transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01163, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lscenellm: Enhancing large 3d scene understanding using adaptive visual preferences

    Hongyan Zhi, Peihao Chen, Junyan Li, Shuailei Ma, Xinyu Sun, Tianhang Xiang, Yinjie Lei, Mingkui Tan, and Chuang Gan. Lscenellm: Enhancing large 3d scene understanding using adaptive visual preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01292, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Video-3d llm: Learning position-aware video representation for 3d scene understanding

    Duo Zheng, Shijia Huang, and Liwei Wang. Video-3d llm: Learning position-aware video representation for 3d scene understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00493, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    4d langsplat: 4d language gaussian splatting via multimodal large language models

    Wanhua Li, Renping Zhou, Jiawei Zhou, Yingwei Song, Johannes Herter, Minghan Qin, Gao Huang, and Hanspeter Pfister. 4d langsplat: 4d language gaussian splatting via multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10437, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vg4d: Vision-language model goes 4d video recognition

    Zhichao Deng, Xiangtai Li, Xia Li, Yunhai Tong, Shen Zhao, and Mengyuan Liu. Vg4d: Vision-language model goes 4d video recognition. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 5014–5020. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    L4d-track: Language-to-4d modeling towards 6-dof tracking and shape reconstruction in 3d point cloud stream

    Jingtao Sun, Yaonan Wang, Mingtao Feng, Yulan Guo, Ajmal Mian, and Mike Zheng Shou. L4d-track: Language-to-4d modeling towards 6-dof tracking and shape reconstruction in 3d point cloud stream. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 21146–21156, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 20310–20320, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 4104–4113, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms

    Steven M Seitz, Brian Curless, James Diebel, Daniel Scharstein, and Richard Szeliski. A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. In 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’06) , volume 1, pages 519...

    2006

  23. [31]

    Df-net: Unsupervised joint learning of depth and flow using cross-task consistency

    Yuliang Zou, Zelun Luo, and Jia-Bin Huang. Df-net: Unsupervised joint learning of depth and flow using cross-task consistency. In Eur . Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 1–18. Springer, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video

    Tinghui Zhou, Matthew Brown, Noah Snavely, and David G Lowe. Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 1851–1858, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Learnable fourier features for multi-dimensional spatial positional encoding

    Yang Li, Si Si, Gang Li, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Samy Bengio. Learnable fourier features for multi-dimensional spatial positional encoding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:15816–15829, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst., 30, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Crossvit: Cross-attention multi-scale vision transformer for image classification

    Chun-Fu Richard Chen, Quanfu Fan, and Rameswar Panda. Crossvit: Cross-attention multi-scale vision transformer for image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 357–366, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Panda-70m: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers

    Tsai-Shien Chen, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Willi Menapace, Ekaterina Deyneka, Hsiang-wei Chao, Byung Eun Jeon, Yuwei Fang, Hsin-Ying Lee, Jian Ren, Ming-Hsuan Yang, et al. Panda-70m: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confere...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation

    Yi Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Kunchang Li, Jiashuo Yu, Xin Ma, Xinhao Li, Guo Chen, Xinyuan Chen, Yaohui Wang, et al. Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06942, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Valley: Video assistant with large language model enhanced ability

    Ruipu Luo, Ziwang Zhao, Min Yang, Junwei Dong, Da Li, Pengcheng Lu, Tao Wang, Linmei Hu, Minghui Qiu, and Zhongyu Wei. Valley: Video assistant with large language model enhanced ability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07207, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Glamm: Pixel grounding large multimodal model

    Hanoona Rasheed, Muhammad Maaz, Sahal Shaji, Abdelrahman Shaker, Salman Khan, Hisham Cholakkal, Rao M Anwer, Eric Xing, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Fahad S Khan. Glamm: Pixel grounding large multimodal model. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 13009–13018, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Scanqa: 3d question answering for spatial scene understanding

    Daichi Azuma, Taiki Miyanishi, Shuhei Kurita, and Motoaki Kawanabe. Scanqa: 3d question answering for spatial scene understanding. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 19129–19139, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Mmscan: A multi-modal 3d scene dataset with hierarchical grounded language annotations

    Ruiyuan Lyu, Jingli Lin, Tai Wang, Xiaohan Mao, Yilun Chen, Runsen Xu, Haifeng Huang, Chenming Zhu, Dahua Lin, and Jiangmiao Pang. Mmscan: A multi-modal 3d scene dataset with hierarchical grounded language annotations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:508...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Scan2cap: Context-aware dense captioning in rgb-d scans

    Zhenyu Chen, Ali Gholami, Matthias Nießner, and Angel X Chang. Scan2cap: Context-aware dense captioning in rgb-d scans. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 3193–3203, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d objects

    Yiming Zhang, ZeMing Gong, and Angel X Chang. Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 15225– 15236, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Sqa3d: Situated question answering in 3d scenes

    Xiaojian Ma, Silong Yong, Zilong Zheng, Qing Li, Yitao Liang, Song-Chun Zhu, and Siyuan Huang. Sqa3d: Situated question answering in 3d scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07474, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Monocular dynamic view synthesis: A reality check

    Hang Gao, Ruilong Li, Shubham Tulsiani, Bryan Russell, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Monocular dynamic view synthesis: A reality check. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:33768–33780, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Hypernerf: A higher-dimensional representation for topologi- cally varying neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Peter Hedman, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Steven M Seitz. Hypernerf: A higher-dimensional representation for topologi- cally varying neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13228, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, et al. Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision...

    2022

  41. [49]

    Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis

    Jonathon Luiten, Georgios Kopanas, Bastian Leibe, and Deva Ramanan. Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 800–809. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation

    Federico Perazzi, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Brian McWilliams, Luc Van Gool, Markus Gross, and Alexander Sorkine-Hornung. A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 724–732, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation

    Michael Broxton, John Flynn, Ryan Overbeck, Daniel Erickson, Peter Hedman, Matthew Duvall, Jason Dourgarian, Jay Busch, Matt Whalen, and Paul Debevec. Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation. ACM Trans. Graph., 39(4):86–1, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images

    Yingfei Liu, Junjie Yan, Fan Jia, Shuailin Li, Aqi Gao, Tiancai Wang, and Xiangyu Zhang. Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 3262–3272, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Imvoxelnet: Image to voxels projection for monocular and multi-view general-purpose 3d object detection

    Danila Rukhovich, Anna V orontsova, and Anton Konushin. Imvoxelnet: Image to voxels projection for monocular and multi-view general-purpose 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 2397–2406, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision)

    Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Kevin Lin, Jianfeng Wang, Chung-Ching Lin, Zicheng Liu, and Lijuan Wang. The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision). arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421, 9(1):1, 2023. 12

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Scanrefer: 3d object localization in rgb-d scans using natural language

    Dave Zhenyu Chen, Angel X Chang, and Matthias Nießner. Scanrefer: 3d object localization in rgb-d scans using natural language. In European conference on computer vision , pages 202–221. Springer, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Chat-3d v2: Bridging 3d scene and large language models with object identifiers

    Haifeng Huang, Zehan Wang, Rongjie Huang, Luping Liu, Xize Cheng, Yang Zhao, Tao Jin, and Zhou Zhao. Chat-3d v2: Bridging 3d scene and large language models with object identifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08168, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Grounded 3d-llm with referent tokens

    Yilun Chen, Shuai Yang, Haifeng Huang, Tai Wang, Runsen Xu, Ruiyuan Lyu, Dahua Lin, and Jiangmiao Pang. Grounded 3d-llm with referent tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10370, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Unifying 3d vision-language understanding via promptable queries

    Ziyu Zhu, Zhuofan Zhang, Xiaojian Ma, Xuesong Niu, Yixin Chen, Baoxiong Jia, Zhidong Deng, Siyuan Huang, and Qing Li. Unifying 3d vision-language understanding via promptable queries. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 188–206. Springer, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning

    Mehdi Cherti, Romain Beaumont, Ross Wightman, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Cade Gordon, Christoph Schuhmann, Ludwig Schmidt, and Jenia Jitsev. Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Event-based vision: A survey

    Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Delbruck, Garrick Orchard, Chiara Bartolozzi, Brian Taba, Andrea Censi, et al. Event-based vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):154– 180, 2020. 13

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.