Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DAV-GSWT claims that diffusion-driven active view selection reconstructs seamless Gaussian Splatting terrain tiles from roughly an order of magnitude fewer captured views, matching exhaustive capture quality.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:51 UTC pith:MAZWOIL5

load-bearing objection The integration is real, but the claimed order-of-magnitude view reduction is contradicted by the paper's own budget math. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.15355 v4 pith:MAZWOIL5 submitted 2026-02-17 cs.CV

DAV-GSWT: Diffusion-Active-View Sampling for Data-Efficient Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles

Rong Fu , Jiekai Wu , Haiyun Wei , Yee Tan Jia , Yang Li , Xiaowen Ma , Wangyu Wu , Simon Fong This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3D Gaussian SplattingWang Tilesactive view selectionuncertainty quantificationdiffusion priorssparse-view reconstructionprocedural terrain generationreal-time rendering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

DAV-GSWT sets out to remove the data bottleneck in Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles, the tiling scheme that turns 3D Gaussian exemplars into seamless infinite terrain. Its central claim: a pre-trained diffusion prior can guide capture, because the disagreement among stochastic predictions of a candidate view signals where the Gaussian field most needs new measurements. Selecting the top-k disagreeing viewpoints and fusing those images yields tile-ready fields at a fraction of the usual capture budget — the paper reports parity with a 200-view exhaustive scan at roughly one order of magnitude fewer views. If right, vast photorealistic worlds could be built from a handful of drone or handheld images, with the active loop also driving seamless tile boundaries and real-time LOD rendering.

Core claim

The paper seeks to establish that viewpoint selection for sparse reconstruction can be driven by the internal disagreement of a pre-trained diffusion prior rather than by geometric heuristics. Starting from a coarse Gaussian field built by a fast structure-from-motion pass, the method runs a single-image-to-3D diffusion model with attention dropout at each candidate pose, forming an ensemble of latent samples; the pairwise 2-Wasserstein divergence of those latents, plus a perceptual-similarity term, scores every candidate pose, and the top-k are sent to a physical capture agent, iterated a few times. The paper reports 29.41 ± 0.08 dB PSNR from this loop (about 60 captured views) against 29.5

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is a viewpoint uncertainty score: after M stochastic forward passes of the diffusion prior with attention dropout, each spatial location of the latent map is treated as a diagonal Gaussian, and the pairwise 2-Wasserstein divergence across samples is summed over space and channels, then combined with a perceptual-similarity (LPIPS) term between two decoded images. This single scalar ranks candidate camera poses; the top-k drive the physical capture budget. Work it does: it converts an expensive, passive data-collection process into a closed active loop in which each captured view is chosen to shrink the disagreement of the generative prior. A second named mechanism, t

Load-bearing premise

The entire data-efficiency gain rests on the assumption that the disagreement among stochastic diffusion predictions at a viewpoint is a reliable proxy for how much the Gaussian field would actually improve from capturing that view — an assumption the paper proves only when the diffusion prior's latent manifold is locally convex, a condition it does not establish for unbounded terrain (Appendix A.1).

What would settle it

Measure per-pose reconstruction error on a held-out test set after adding each candidate view to the field, and correlate it with the paper's uncertainty score u(θ) across a dense pose grid on a real unbounded-terrain scene. If the Spearman rank correlation is zero or negative — or if random and uniform view selection at the same budget match the active loop's PSNR — the monotonic-correlation premise fails and the data-efficiency gain vanishes. A cheaper version sits in the paper's own tables: the full method (29.41 ± 0.08) and the exhaustive 200-view baseline (29.50 ± 0.07) are statistically

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Capture budgets for terrain exemplars drop by roughly an order of magnitude: about 60 active views match a 200-view exhaustive scan within statistical noise (p = 0.18), so seamless infinite-terrain rendering no longer requires dense capture.
  • Latent-space ensemble disagreement (W2 + LPIPS) is a better view-selection signal than image-space gradient uncertainty, cutting uncertainty-evaluation cost and improving seam quality.
  • Removing the semantic weight from the seam graph cut costs about 0.8 dB PSNR, so semantic awareness materially contributes to tile-boundary fidelity.
  • Interactive rendering survives the sparse pipeline: per-frame render times stay in the 5–15 ms range with millions of splats, supported by uncertainty-guided pre-sorted caching and continuous LOD blending.
  • The framework works on real drone footage as well as synthetic terrains, so the data-efficiency gain is not confined to controlled renderings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the same disagreement-driven active loop should transfer to other procedural content — building facades, road networks, foliage — wherever a diffusion prior can forecast the next view; the paper only demonstrates terrain tiles.
  • My inference: if diffusion disagreement does track reconstruction error, the method points to a general pattern for low-data 3D sensing — let a generative prior propose candidate measurements and a cheap sensor verify them — which could matter for field robotics and rapid exploration beyond virtual worlds.
  • My inference: with the default budget (8 initial views plus 3 iterations of 20 captures = 68 views) against a 200-view baseline, the realized view reduction is closer to threefold; the 'order of magnitude' phrasing is the paper's summary, not what the default arithmetic itself shows.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DAV-GSWT, a framework for data-efficient Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles that combines a pre-trained diffusion prior (Zero-1-to-3) with active view sampling. An uncertainty estimator based on latent-space 2-Wasserstein divergence and LPIPS scores ranks candidate viewpoints, and the top-k are physically captured and fused into the Gaussian field over T iterations. The refined field is partitioned into Wang tiles with semantic-aware seam optimization and uncertainty-guided LOD caching. The central claim is that this pipeline achieves near-exhaustive reconstruction quality with roughly one order of magnitude fewer captured views, supported mainly by Table 4, which reports PSNR 29.41±0.08 for the full method versus 29.50±0.07 for an exhaustive 200-view baseline.

Significance. If substantiated, the method would address a real bottleneck in large-scale procedural rendering: reducing the dense-view requirement of Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles. The paper contains useful engineering ideas—combining W2 latent disagreement with LPIPS, semantic-aware seam energy, and uncertainty-guided caching—and reports substantial performance details. However, the current evidence does not support the headline data-efficiency claim: the stated budgets imply a 2.9x reduction, not an order of magnitude, and the only statistical comparison to the exhaustive baseline is not significant (p=0.18). The absence of a same-budget GSWT baseline and the lack of code/data/protocol details further undermine the contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.8, §3.6, §4.4] The claim of 'roughly one order of magnitude fewer captured views' is contradicted by the manuscript's own stated budget. §3.6/§4.4 set k=20, T=3, and §4.2 states DAV starts from 8 views, giving 8+3×20=68 total views. Against the 200-view exhaustive baseline in Table 4 this is a 2.9x reduction; against the 100-view synthetic datasets it is 1.5x. Moreover, Table 4 reports p=0.18 for the full method vs. the 200-view exhaustive baseline, so the claimed quality preservation is not statistically significant. The headline data-efficiency claim must be corrected to the actual reduction, and the significance test must be reported honestly.
  2. [Table 4, §4.8] The central ablation table lacks a same-budget GSWT baseline. To establish that active diffusion-guided selection, rather than simply having any 68-view set, is responsible for the result, the authors must compare against GSWT trained with 68 views sampled randomly or uniformly. Figure 7 mentions 'random' strategies but no corresponding quantitative table is provided. Without this control, the active-selection mechanism is not validated; the observed PSNR could be attributable to the additional views alone or to the diffusion refiner. This is a load-bearing omission for the paper's core claim.
  3. [Appendix A.1–A.3, A.5] Several theoretical statements are asserted without proof. A.1 claims a proof that ulat is monotonically correlated with ground-truth reconstruction error under 'locally convex' latent-manifold assumption, but no proof follows; the assumption itself is not established for unbounded terrain. A.2 asserts submodularity and monotonicity of the aggregate uncertainty U without demonstration, and the greedy approximation ratio is invoked without the required conditions. A.3 states submodularity of the seam energy without proof. A.5 states the concentration bound ||I_syn - I_gt||_inf ≤ σ^2 sqrt(2 log(1/δ)) without derivation; the σ^2 scaling is also dimensionally suspect. Since these results are used to justify the active-selection and hallucination guarantees, they must either be proven rigorously or removed and replaced with empirical validation.
  4. [§4.2, §4.6, Table 4] The evaluation protocol is underspecified. For real scenes, no ground-truth test views are described, yet PSNR values are reported; it is unclear whether PSNR is computed against held-out frames, reconstructed images, or synthetic renderings. The paired t-test in Table 4 lacks details on the paired observations (e.g., per-scene or per-seed values). The paper also states no code or data will be released, which hinders reproducibility and verification of the central claims. The authors should specify the exact test-view protocol, provide per-scene results, and make at least the datasets and baseline implementations available.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) appears to define W(s,t) as a ratio of two weighted sums, which is unusual for a graph-cut pairwise cost. Appendix Eq. (11) writes a similar expression with numerator and denominator swapped. Please clarify the intended weighted combination and ensure the two equations are consistent.
  2. [Table 4] The caption states 'p <0.01 vs. next best in each block,' but the exhaustive baseline row reports p=0.18. Clarify whether the p-values are two-tailed tests against the full method and why the exhaustive row is excluded from the '<0.01' statement.
  3. [§3.2, Figure 1] Figure 1 mentions 'image-space LPIPS gradients' and 'latent 2-Wasserstein divergence W2(Z)', but the text does not clearly explain how these two uncertainty terms are combined recursively. Also, the arrow from G_t-1 to the diffusion model is not described in the text.
  4. [Appendix A.4, Eq. (12)] The blending function α(d) is claimed to achieve C1 continuity at boundary limits when Δ is sufficiently large, but the piecewise-linear form is only C0. Please check the smoothness claim.
  5. [General] The abstract claims the framework 'significantly reduces the required data volume' without reporting a statistical test on view counts. Please qualify this statement with the actual reduction and confidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation found; the quantitative view-reduction claim is inconsistent with stated budgets but not circular.

full rationale

The core DAV-GSWT loop is not circular. Uncertainty scores u(θ) are computed from stochastic forward passes of the pre-trained Zero-1-to-3 diffusion model at candidate poses (Eqs. 1–4). These scores select top-k viewpoints (Algorithm 1), newly captured images update the Gaussian field, and final quality is measured by PSNR and Seam-LPIPS against held-out/exhaustive imagery (Table 4). The evaluation metric is not the same as the selection score, so no prediction is forced by construction. The seam energy (Eq. 5) uses color/semantic gradients with an uncertainty-adaptive weight, not the evaluation LPIPS itself. The only self-citation is reference [7] (FlashGS), used in the introduction as an example of large-scale rendering; it is not load-bearing for any derivation. Appendix A.1 states a monotonicity result but only under a strong unproven local-convexity assumption; that is a support gap, not a circular reduction. The paper's claim of 'roughly one order of magnitude fewer captured views' (§4.8) is inconsistent with its own budgets (8 initial + 3×20 = 68 views vs. the 200-view baseline, a ~2.9× reduction), but arithmetic overstatement is a correctness issue, not circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or ontological entities are introduced. The uncertainty-adaptive semantic weight gamma(bar-u) is a modeling component, not an entity with independent evidence.

free parameters (9)
  • lambda (LPIPS weight) = 0.1
    Balances image-space gradient and LPIPS disagreement in Eqs. (1), (4), (8), (9); chosen by hand, varied in sensitivity analysis.
  • p_drop (attention dropout probability) = 0.15
    Injected into diffusion UNet to create stochastic ensemble; tuned empirically, §3.8 and Table 3.
  • tau (uncertainty-guided cache threshold) = 0.6
    Tiles above mean uncertainty keep larger caches and deeper LODs; chosen empirically, §3.5 and Table 3.
  • k (per-iteration capture budget) = 20
    Number of top-k poses selected per active iteration; default in Algorithm 1 and Table 3.
  • T (active iterations) = 3
    Number of active capture/update cycles; fixed in Algorithm 1 and §4.4.
  • M (ensemble size) = 5
    Stochastic forward passes for the latent ensemble; default in §3.6 and §4.4.
  • gamma(bar-u) sigmoid constants = center 0.5, slope 2
    Eq. (6) defines gamma(bar-u)=1-sigmoid(2(bar-u-0.5)); the center and slope are hand-picked without justification.
  • LOD thresholds D_i and blending bandwidth Delta = not specified
    Eq. (7) depends on D_i and Delta; their values are not reported, though they determine LOD transition behavior.
  • per-tile cache sizes and thresholds = not specified
    §3.8 states these are 'chosen empirically' and not listed.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional diffusion prior's latent manifold is locally convex (or sufficiently regular).
    Appendix A.1 uses this to 'prove' that ulat is monotonically correlated with ground-truth reconstruction error; no evidence is offered for this geometric assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The aggregate uncertainty U is submodular and monotone.
    Appendix A.2 asserts these properties to claim greedy selection converges and achieves a (1-1/e) approximation ratio; no proof is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthesized views satisfy the concentration bound ||Isyn - Igt||_inf <= sigma^2 sqrt(2 log(1/delta)).
    Appendix A.5 states this bound without derivation; the sigma-squared scaling is dimensionally suspicious, as a norm bound should scale with sigma rather than sigma squared.
  • domain assumption Zero-1-to-3, an object-centric single-image-to-3D diffusion model, provides a valid generative prior for unbounded terrain.
    §3.2 and §4.1 choose Zero-1-to-3 [52] without evidence that it transfers to outdoor terrain, where the method is evaluated.
  • domain assumption COLMAP quick SfM yields a usable coarse Gaussian field from 8 initial views.
    §3.2 relies on this to initialize G0; no robustness analysis is provided for the 8-view sparse setting.
  • domain assumption GSWT tile mathematics from [45] applies to the refined Gaussian field.
    §2.4 imports the prior Wang-tile framework without re-deriving or verifying its applicability under sparse reconstruction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13900 in / 15112 out tokens · 152161 ms · 2026-08-02T22:51:57.954012+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAV-GSWT: Diffusion-Active-View Sampling for Data-Efficient Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAZWOIL5

@misc{pith2026260215355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAV-GSWT: Diffusion-Active-View Sampling for Data-Efficient Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAZWOIL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.15355}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The emergence of 3D Gaussian Splatting has fundamentally redefined the capabilities of photorealistic neural rendering by enabling high-throughput synthesis of complex environments. While procedural methods like Wang Tiles have recently been integrated to facilitate the generation of expansive landscapes, these systems typically remain constrained by a reliance on densely sampled exemplar reconstructions. We present DAV-GSWT, a data-efficient framework that leverages diffusion priors and active view sampling to synthesize high-fidelity Gaussian Splatting Wang Tiles from minimal input observations. By integrating a hierarchical uncertainty quantification mechanism with generative diffusion models, our approach autonomously identifies the most informative viewpoints while hallucinating missing structural details to ensure seamless tile transitions. Experimental results indicate that our system significantly reduces the required data volume while maintaining the visual integrity and interactive performance necessary for large-scale virtual environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15355 by Haiyun Wei, Jiekai Wu, Rong Fu, Simon Fong, Wangyu Wu, Xiaowen Ma, Yang Li, Yee Tan Jia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the DAV-GSWT framework for data-efficient Gaussian Splatting and tiling. The pipeline begins with a coarse reconstruction G0 computed from sparse initial images Iinit. During the active cycle, a pre-trained diffusion model generates M stochastic latent samples zm(θ) using attention dropout. These samples are evaluated by the uncertainty estimator, which computes a score u(θ) from image-space LP… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Active-view uncertainty over a dense candidate viewing sphere. Each point represents a candidate camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Iterative reconstruction evolution under DAV-GSWT. Top row shows rendered reconstructions at iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study of uncertainty formulations for active view selection. From left to right and top to bottom: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of seam artifacts using color-only graph cuts versus semantic-aware cuts augmented with SAM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the tile-level uncertainty cache during online reconstruction. Warm colors indicate high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reconstruction quality versus capture budget. DAV-GSWT achieves near-exhaustive reconstruction quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Foundation-Assisted Active Learning for Object Detection Annotation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A foundation-model-assisted active learning system using UPN+SAM2 reference boxes and DINOv2 object features improves low-budget annotation efficiency for remote sensing object detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gaussian splatting: 3d reconstruction and novel view synthesis: A review.IEEE Access, 12:96797–96820, 2024

    Anurag Dalal, Daniel Hagen, Kjell G Robbersmyr, and Kristian Muri Knausgård. Gaussian splatting: 3d reconstruction and novel view synthesis: A review.IEEE Access, 12:96797–96820, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Radsplat: Radiance field-informed gaussian splatting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ fps

    Michael Niemeyer, Fabian Manhardt, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Michael Oechsle, Daniel Duckworth, Rama Gosula, Keisuke Tateno, John Bates, Dominik Kaeser, and Federico Tombari. Radsplat: Radiance field-informed gaussian splatting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ fps. In2025 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 134–144. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Speedy-splat: Fast 3d gaussian splatting with sparse pixels and sparse primitives

    Alex Hanson, Allen Tu, Geng Lin, Vasu Singla, Matthias Zwicker, and Tom Goldstein. Speedy-splat: Fast 3d gaussian splatting with sparse pixels and sparse primitives. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 21537–21546, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Gsarch: Breaking memory barriers in 3d gaussian splatting training via architectural support

    Houshu He, Gang Li, Fangxin Liu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyao Liang, and Zhuoran Song. Gsarch: Breaking memory barriers in 3d gaussian splatting training via architectural support. In2025 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pages 366–379. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    A decoupled 3d gaussian splatting method for real-time high-fidelity dynamic scene reconstruction.Knowledge-Based Systems, page 115321, 2026

    Yunxiao Li and Shuhuan Wen. A decoupled 3d gaussian splatting method for real-time high-fidelity dynamic scene reconstruction.Knowledge-Based Systems, page 115321, 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    Splatmap: Online dense monocular slam with 3d gaussian splatting.Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 8(1):1–18, 2025

    Yue Hu, Rong Liu, Meida Chen, Peter Beerel, and Andrew Feng. Splatmap: Online dense monocular slam with 3d gaussian splatting.Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 8(1):1–18, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Flashgs: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting for large-scale and high-resolution rendering

    Guofeng Feng, Siyan Chen, Rong Fu, Zimu Liao, Yi Wang, Tao Liu, Boni Hu, Linning Xu, Zhilin Pei, Hengjie Li, et al. Flashgs: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting for large-scale and high-resolution rendering. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 26652–26662, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Gs-gvins: A tightly-integrated gnss-visual- inertial navigation system augmented by 3d gaussian splatting.IEEE Access, 2025

    Zelin Zhou, Shichuang Nie, Saurav Uprety, and Hongzhou Yang. Gs-gvins: A tightly-integrated gnss-visual- inertial navigation system augmented by 3d gaussian splatting.IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Instantsplat: Sparse-view gaussian splatting in seconds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20309, 2024

    Zhiwen Fan, Wenyan Cong, Kairun Wen, Kevin Wang, Jian Zhang, Xinghao Ding, Danfei Xu, Boris Ivanovic, Marco Pavone, Georgios Pavlakos, et al. Instantsplat: Sparse-view gaussian splatting in seconds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20309, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Optimizing 3d gaussian splatting for sparse viewpoint scene reconstruction

    Shen Chen, Jiale Zhou, and Lei Li. Optimizing 3d gaussian splatting for sparse viewpoint scene reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03213, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Tengfei Wang, Xin Wang, Yongmao Hou, Yiwei Xu, Wendi Zhang, and Zongqian Zhan. Pg-sag: Parallel gaussian splatting for fine-grained large-scale urban buildings reconstruction via semantic-aware grouping.PFG–Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science, pages 1–16, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Gaussianupdate: Continual 3d gaussian splatting update for changing environments

    Lin Zeng, Boming Zhao, Jiarui Hu, Xujie Shen, Ziqiang Dang, Hujun Bao, and Zhaopeng Cui. Gaussianupdate: Continual 3d gaussian splatting update for changing environments. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 25800–25809, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field

    Joo Chan Lee, Daniel Rho, Xiangyu Sun, Jong Hwan Ko, and Eunbyung Park. Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21719–21728, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Gs- occ3d: Scaling vision-only occupancy reconstruction with gaussian splatting

    Baijun Ye, Minghui Qin, Saining Zhang, Moonjun Gong, Shaoting Zhu, Hao Zhao, and Hang Zhao. Gs- occ3d: Scaling vision-only occupancy reconstruction with gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 25925–25937, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Uncertainty-driven active vision for implicit scene reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00978, 2022

    Edward J Smith, Michal Drozdzal, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, David Meger, and Adriana Romero-Soriano. Uncertainty-driven active vision for implicit scene reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00978, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Peering into the unknown: Active view selection with neural uncertainty maps for 3d reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14856, 2025

    Zhengquan Zhang, Feng Xu, and Mengmi Zhang. Peering into the unknown: Active view selection with neural uncertainty maps for 3d reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14856, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Active neural 3d reconstruction with colorized surface voxel-based view selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02568, 2024

    Hyunseo Kim, Hyeonseo Yang, Taekyung Kim, YoonSung Kim, Jin-Hwa Kim, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. Active neural 3d reconstruction with colorized surface voxel-based view selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02568, 2024. 12 DA V-GSWT

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Active3d: Active high-fidelity 3d reconstruction via hierarchical uncertainty quantification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20050, 2025

    Yan Li, Yingzhao Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Active3d: Active high-fidelity 3d reconstruction via hierarchical uncertainty quantification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20050, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Uncertainty-aware global-view reconstruction for multi-view multi-label feature selection

    Pingting Hao, Kunpeng Liu, and Wanfu Gao. Uncertainty-aware global-view reconstruction for multi-view multi-label feature selection. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 17068–17076, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    ifusion: Inverting diffusion for pose-free reconstruction from sparse views

    Chin-Hsuan Wu, Yen-Chun Chen, Bolivar Solarte, Lu Yuan, and Min Sun. ifusion: Inverting diffusion for pose-free reconstruction from sparse views. In2025 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 813–823. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Sparse3d: Distilling multiview-consistent diffusion for object reconstruction from sparse views

    Zixin Zou, Weihao Cheng, Yan-Pei Cao, Shi-Sheng Huang, Ying Shan, and Song-Hai Zhang. Sparse3d: Distilling multiview-consistent diffusion for object reconstruction from sparse views. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pages 7900–7908, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    Mvdiffusion++: A dense high-resolution multi-view diffusion model for single or sparse-view 3d object reconstruction

    Shitao Tang, Jiacheng Chen, Dilin Wang, Chengzhou Tang, Fuyang Zhang, Yuchen Fan, Vikas Chandra, Yasutaka Furukawa, and Rakesh Ranjan. Mvdiffusion++: A dense high-resolution multi-view diffusion model for single or sparse-view 3d object reconstruction. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 175–191. Springer, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Neural radiance fields for the real world: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13104, 2025

    Wenhui Xiao, Remi Chierchia, Rodrigo Santa Cruz, Xuesong Li, David Ahmedt-Aristizabal, Olivier Salvado, Clin- ton Fookes, and Leo Lebrat. Neural radiance fields for the real world: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13104, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Vr-splatting: Foveated radiance field rendering via 3d gaussian splatting and neural points.Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 8(1): 1–21, 2025

    Linus Franke, Laura Fink, and Marc Stamminger. Vr-splatting: Foveated radiance field rendering via 3d gaussian splatting and neural points.Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 8(1): 1–21, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    3d convex splatting: Radiance field rendering with 3d smooth convexes

    Jan Held, Renaud Vandeghen, Abdullah Hamdi, Adrien Deliege, Anthony Cioppa, Silvio Giancola, Andrea Vedaldi, Bernard Ghanem, and Marc Van Droogenbroeck. 3d convex splatting: Radiance field rendering with 3d smooth convexes. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 21360–21369, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    3dgs-drag: Dragging gaussians for intuitive point-based 3d editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07963, 2026

    Jiahua Dong and Yu-Xiong Wang. 3dgs-drag: Dragging gaussians for intuitive point-based 3d editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07963, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Estimating 3d uncertainty field: Quantify- ing uncertainty for neural radiance fields

    Jianxiong Shen, Ruijie Ren, Adria Ruiz, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. Estimating 3d uncertainty field: Quantify- ing uncertainty for neural radiance fields. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2375–2381. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Epistemic uncertainty quantification for pre-trained neural networks

    Hanjing Wang and Qiang Ji. Epistemic uncertainty quantification for pre-trained neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11052–11061, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    4d gaussian splatting in the wild with uncertainty-aware regularization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:129209–129226, 2024

    Mijeong Kim, Jongwoo Lim, and Bohyung Han. 4d gaussian splatting in the wild with uncertainty-aware regularization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:129209–129226, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Uncertainty-guided optimal transport in depth supervised sparse-view 3d gaussian.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19657, 2024

    Wei Sun, Qi Zhang, Yanzhao Zhou, Qixiang Ye, Jianbin Jiao, and Yuan Li. Uncertainty-guided optimal transport in depth supervised sparse-view 3d gaussian.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19657, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Visibility- uncertainty-guided 3d gaussian inpainting via scene conceptional learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17815, 2025

    Mingxuan Cui, Qing Guo, Yuyi Wang, Hongkai Yu, Di Lin, Qin Zou, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Xi Li. Visibility- uncertainty-guided 3d gaussian inpainting via scene conceptional learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17815, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Gradient-based local next-best-view planning for improved perception of targeted plant nodes

    Akshay K Burusa, Eldert J van Henten, and Gert Kootstra. Gradient-based local next-best-view planning for improved perception of targeted plant nodes. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 15854–15860. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Uncertainty guided policy for active robotic 3d reconstruction using neural radiance fields.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7 (4):12070–12077, 2022

    Soomin Lee, Le Chen, Jiahao Wang, Alexander Liniger, Suryansh Kumar, and Fisher Yu. Uncertainty guided policy for active robotic 3d reconstruction using neural radiance fields.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7 (4):12070–12077, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Active implicit object reconstruction using uncertainty-guided next-best-view optimization.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(10):6395–6402, 2023

    Dongyu Yan, Jianheng Liu, Fengyu Quan, Haoyao Chen, and Mengmeng Fu. Active implicit object reconstruction using uncertainty-guided next-best-view optimization.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(10):6395–6402, 2023. 13 DA V-GSWT

    2023

  35. [35]

    Gauss-mi: Gaussian splatting shannon mutual information for active 3d reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21067, 2025

    Yuhan Xie, Yixi Cai, Yinqiang Zhang, Lei Yang, and Jia Pan. Gauss-mi: Gaussian splatting shannon mutual information for active 3d reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21067, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Map-nbv: Multi-agent prediction-guided next-best-view planning for active 3d object reconstruction

    Harnaik Dhami, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, and Pratap Tokekar. Map-nbv: Multi-agent prediction-guided next-best-view planning for active 3d object reconstruction. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 5724–5731. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  37. [37]

    Gennbv: Generalizable next-best-view policy for active 3d reconstruction

    Xiao Chen, Quanyi Li, Tai Wang, Tianfan Xue, and Jiangmiao Pang. Gennbv: Generalizable next-best-view policy for active 3d reconstruction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16436–16445, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Activeinitsplat: How active image selection helps gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06859, 2025

    Konstantinos D Polyzos, Athanasios Bacharis, Saketh Madhuvarasu, Nikos Papanikolopoulos, and Tara Javidi. Activeinitsplat: How active image selection helps gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06859, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Activegs: Active scene reconstruction using gaussian splatting.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    Liren Jin, Xingguang Zhong, Yue Pan, Jens Behley, Cyrill Stachniss, and Marija Popovi´c. Activegs: Active scene reconstruction using gaussian splatting.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    Active view selector: Fast and accurate active view selection with cross reference image quality assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19844, 2025

    Zirui Wang, Yash Bhalgat, Ruining Li, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Active view selector: Fast and accurate active view selection with cross reference image quality assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19844, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Citygs-x: A scalable architecture for efficient and geometrically accurate large-scale scene reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23044, 2025

    Yuanyuan Gao, Hao Li, Jiaqi Chen, Zhengyu Zou, Zhihang Zhong, Dingwen Zhang, Xiao Sun, and Junwei Han. Citygs-x: A scalable architecture for efficient and geometrically accurate large-scale scene reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23044, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Flod: Integrating flexible level of detail into 3d gaussian splatting for customizable rendering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12894, 2024

    Yunji Seo, Young Sun Choi, Hyun Seung Son, and Youngjung Uh. Flod: Integrating flexible level of detail into 3d gaussian splatting for customizable rendering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12894, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Lodge: Level-of-detail large-scale gaussian splatting with efficient rendering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23158, 2025

    Jonas Kulhanek, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Fabian Manhardt, Christina Tsalicoglou, Michael Niemeyer, Torsten Sattler, Songyou Peng, and Federico Tombari. Lodge: Level-of-detail large-scale gaussian splatting with efficient rendering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23158, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Tile-based methods for texture synthesis

    Ares Lagae. Tile-based methods for texture synthesis. InWang Tiles in Computer Graphics, pages 25–38. Springer, 2022

    2022

  45. [45]

    Gswt: Gaussian splatting wang tiles

    Yunfan Zeng, Li Ma, and Pedro V Sander. Gswt: Gaussian splatting wang tiles. InProceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Zero-shot uncertainty quantification using diffusion probabilistic models

    Dule Shu and Amir Barati Farimani. Zero-shot uncertainty quantification using diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04718, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Reconx: Reconstruct any scene from sparse views with video diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16767, 2024

    Fangfu Liu, Wenqiang Sun, Hanyang Wang, Yikai Wang, Haowen Sun, Junliang Ye, Jun Zhang, and Yueqi Duan. Reconx: Reconstruct any scene from sparse views with video diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16767, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Sparsefusion: Distilling view-conditioned diffusion for 3d reconstruction

    Zhizhuo Zhou and Shubham Tulsiani. Sparsefusion: Distilling view-conditioned diffusion for 3d reconstruction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12588–12597, 2023

    2023

  49. [49]

    Reconfusion: 3d reconstruction with diffusion priors

    Rundi Wu, Ben Mildenhall, Philipp Henzler, Keunhong Park, Ruiqi Gao, Daniel Watson, Pratul P Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Poole, et al. Reconfusion: 3d reconstruction with diffusion priors. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 21551–21561, 2024

    2024

  50. [50]

    3dgs-enhancer: Enhancing unbounded 3d gaussian splatting with view-consistent 2d diffusion priors.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:133305–133327, 2024

    Xi Liu, Chaoyi Zhou, and Siyu Huang. 3dgs-enhancer: Enhancing unbounded 3d gaussian splatting with view-consistent 2d diffusion priors.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:133305–133327, 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Diffusion epistemic uncertainty with asymmetric learning for diffusion-generated image detection

    Yingsong Huang, Hui Guo, Jing Huang, Bing Bai, and Qi Xiong. Diffusion epistemic uncertainty with asymmetric learning for diffusion-generated image detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17097–17107, 2025

    2025

  52. [52]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tokmakov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9298–9309, 2023. 14 DA V-GSWT A Theoretical Analysis The efficacy of the DA V-GSWT framework is established through a rigorous examina...

    2023