Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

SCIGS: 3D Gaussians Splatting from a Snapshot Compressive Image

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single snapshot compressed image can reconstruct an explicit 3D Gaussian scene, including dynamic scenes, via a camera-pose-aware transformation network.

desk verdict SCIGS is a plausible and novel SCI decoder with strong dynamic-scene numbers, but its central claim of explicit 3D reconstruction is untested since every metric is same-view decoding. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12471 v2 pith:QMIPPBRE submitted 2024-11-19 cs.CV

Zixu Wang , Hao Yang , Yu Guo , Fei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords snapshotcompressiveimaging3DGaussiansplattingdynamicscenereconstructioncameraposeestimationtransformationnetworkhigh-frequencyfilterSCIdecodingnovelviewsynthesis
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 establish that one snapshot compressed image, of the kind a coded-aperture camera captures, contains enough information to reconstruct an explicit 3D scene as a set of 3D Gaussians, including when the scene is dynamic. It proposes SCIGS, a 3D Gaussian Splatting variant that replaces camera-pose optimization with a learned transformation of Gaussian primitives conditioned on camera pose stamps. The paper reports that this method surpasses prior SCI decoders and SCINeRF on dynamic scenes, and matches or exceeds them on most static scenes. If true, it would mean high-speed dynamic 3D scenes could be recovered from a single exposure with ordinary camera hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the camera-pose-aware transformation network $F$, an MLP that maps a Gaussian's positional embedding and a camera pose stamp to $(\delta\mu, \delta r)$. It does the work that camera-pose optimization would do, but per primitive, so different stamps can move the same base Gaussians differently, which is what lets a single compressed exposure decode into a dynamic scene. The correctness of this substitution rests on the assertion that moving the initial camera to the true pose is equivalent to moving the Gaussians in front of a fixed camera. A high-frequency filter, implemented by convolving each 3D Gaussian with a low-pass Gaussian whose scale depends on the maximal sampling frequency across all stamps, removes aliasing artifacts.

What would settle it

Render the reconstructed Gaussians from a novel camera pose, not the fixed one, and compare against ground-truth images from a dataset with known camera poses, such as the LLFF or NeRF Synthetic scenes used in the paper. If the novel-view PSNR is close to that of a random 3D point cloud, the equivalence between camera motion and Gaussian transformation would be refuted; the paper reports no such test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCIGS is the first method to recover an explicit 3D Gaussian Splatting scene from a single snapshot compressive image. The central mechanism is a primitive-level transformation network that takes each Gaussian's coordinates and a camera pose stamp as input and outputs increments to position and quaternion, effectively moving the Gaussians to the positions they would occupy for that camera pose. Because the initial camera is never moved, the method sidesteps the chaotic gradients that arise when most Gaussians project outside the correct image region. A high-frequency filter, derived from the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, suppresses artifacts from the transformed Gaussians. The paper demonstrates the approach on static and dynamic scenes, reporting that it surpasses prior works on dynamic datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The method stands on the assumption that rearranging the 3D Gaussians in front of a fixed camera is exactly equivalent to moving the camera to its true pose, and that a smooth MLP, guided only by gradients from the few Gaussians that already project near the right place, can find that rearrangement without the camera pose ever being checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a single coded-aperture exposure can yield an explicit 3D Gaussian scene rather than a stack of 2D images.
  • The transformation network can decouple the transformation field from the compressed image, allowing dynamic scenes to be reconstructed from one snapshot.
  • Replacing camera-pose optimization with Gaussian transformation removes the oscillation problem that occurs when most Gaussians are ineffective, making 3D reconstruction from a random initialization more stable.
  • The high-frequency filter provides a principled way to remove artifacts introduced when Gaussians are moved between pose stamps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not validate the recovered camera pose or report novel-view synthesis, so its strongest implied claim, that the reconstructed Gaussians form a geometrically correct 3D scene, remains untested; a natural extension would be measuring multi-view consistency on held-out views.
  • The equivalence between camera movement and Gaussian transformation, if correct, suggests a general recipe for other inverse problems where camera poses are unknown: optimize the object instead of the observer.
  • Since the method conditions the transformation on camera pose stamps, it could in principle render arbitrary intermediate times between the compressed frames, effectively interpolating high-speed motion beyond the exposure's temporal resolution, something the paper does not examine.
  • For autonomous driving, a single snapshot compressive camera could replace a burst of exposures, but the method's 480p dynamic experiments and unvalidated geometry would need scaling tests first.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SCIGS, a 3D Gaussian Splatting framework for reconstructing a 3D scene from a single snapshot compressive image. The method initializes random 3D Gaussians and a fixed camera, then uses an MLP transformation network that takes Gaussian coordinates and a camera pose stamp to output per-Gaussian position and quaternion increments. The transformed Gaussians are rendered through a high-frequency filter and a differentiable rasterizer into B frames, which are modulated by the known masks to synthesize a compressed image; training minimizes the loss between the synthesized and real compressed images. Experiments compare decoded frame quality against ground-truth frames on static (LLFF, NeRF Synthetic, DeblurNeRF) and dynamic (DAVIS2017) datasets, reporting PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS relative to existing SCI decoders and SCINeRF.

Significance. If validated, the paper would introduce the first explicit 3D representation reconstructed from a single snapshot compressive image, with a plausible route to dynamic scenes and a useful high-frequency filter for stabilizing Gaussian transformations. The dynamic-scene results are substantially better than SCINeRF on several datasets (e.g., Roundabout PSNR 31.07 vs. 26.02 in Table 2), and the filter ablation in Table 4 shows a clear quantitative benefit. However, the paper's central claim of 3D reconstruction is not directly tested: all reported metrics are same-view decoded-image metrics, and no experiment measures novel-view synthesis, geometry, or recovered camera poses. The contribution is therefore interesting and potentially important, but the evidence as presented does not yet establish that the method reconstructs a coherent 3D scene rather than fitting the coded 2D measurement with per-frame deformations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.2] The central claim of explicit 3D reconstruction is not validated by the experiments. All quantitative results in Tables 1, 2, A, and B compare the decoded frames against ground-truth frames at the same viewpoint used during training; there is no novel-view synthesis, no depth or geometry evaluation, and no recovered camera pose accuracy. Since the training loss (Eq. 5) is only the mask-modulated sum from one fixed camera, the reported metrics are equally consistent with a 2D per-frame decoder that uses a Gaussian parameterization. A minimal validation would be to render from a held-out camera pose (available in the static benchmarks) and compare against the corresponding ground-truth view, or to compare recovered depth or pose against known values.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (7)] The equivalence asserted in Section 3.3 between moving the camera to the correct pose and moving the Gaussians in front of a fixed camera is only valid if the per-stamp transformation is a single global rigid transform. However, Eq. (7) outputs independent per-Gaussian increments (δμ, δr), and nothing in the loss or network architecture enforces rigidity or even consistency across Gaussians; the only smoothness argument is the continuity of the MLP. No experiment checks whether the learned per-stamp transformations actually form a coherent camera motion or a coherent scene. In dynamic scenes, the stamps are merely frame indices and the physical camera does not move, so the 'camera pose stamp' terminology does not correspond to any recovered pose. This leaves the mechanism that distinguishes SCIGS from a 2D SCI decoder untested.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 4.2] The claim that SCIGS 'outperforms or approaches' existing methods is not supported on all static scenes. On Airplants, SCIGS reports SSIM 0.7267 and PSNR 27.18, whereas EfficientSCI reports SSIM 0.9425 and PSNR 30.13, and SCINeRF reports SSIM 0.9335; the Airplants LPIPS of 0.3003 is far worse than every baseline. The paper's explanation (lack of texture and large camera movements) is plausible but is not quantified, and it weakens the general claim of superiority in static scenes. The authors should either restrict their claims to the scenes where the method is competitive or provide additional analysis of why these two scenes fail.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Eq. (11)] The mask overlapping rate OR is selected empirically after observing test performance in Table 3, and the high-frequency filter scale gamma is never reported. Because OR is part of the forward model used to synthesize the training compressed image, choosing OR based on the evaluation datasets is a form of test-set leakage that can inflate reported performance. The value of gamma in Eq. (11) must be reported for reproducibility, and the authors should clarify whether OR and gamma were tuned on a held-out validation set or on the same test scenes used in Tables 1 and 2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] There are several typos and grammar issues, including 'conpressive' in the Conclusion, 'embead' in Eq. (7), 'solution' instead of 'resolution' in Section 4.1, 'Tranformer' in the Related Work, and 'SOTA SCI image method (SCINeRF)' in the caption of Figure 5, where SCINeRF is not an SCI image method.
  2. [Section 4.1] The implementation details are incomplete: the paper does not report the number of training iterations, learning rates, Gaussian count, or the value of the filter hyperparameter gamma. This information is needed to reproduce the results.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'the quality of reconstruction increases first and then decreases with the overlapping rate ranging from 0.125 to 0.75' is unclear because Table 3 shows a monotonic decrease from 0.25 to 0.75 after an increase from 0.125 to 0.25; the wording should be revised.
  4. [Eq. (11)] The units and roles of gamma and v_i in the filter scale gamma / v_i are not fully explained; since v_i is a sampling frequency, the combination implies a dimensional scale that should be clarified to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the training loss is measurement consistency against the input compressed image, and the one self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

SCIGS's core optimization is a proper inverse problem: the rendered frames are passed through the SCI forward model (Eq. 5) and compared with the input compressed image, while ground-truth frames are used only for evaluation (Tables 1, 2, A, B). There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no equation that defines the output in terms of the input by construction. The Sec. 3.3 equivalence between moving the camera and moving the Gaussians is an assumption about the learned transformation, but it is not enforced by an identity in the loss; it is an unvalidated claim, which is a correctness/evidence concern rather than circularity. The only self-citation is iComMa [28] in the Related Work section, cited as one of several prior camera-pose methods for context; the paper's central claims do not rest on it. The empirical selection of mask overlap rate (Sec. 4.3) is a standard hyperparameter choice, not a circular step. The absence of novel-view synthesis or pose-accuracy validation weakens the 3D-scene claim, but that is an evaluation gap, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard SCI measurement modeling and deformable 3DGS assumptions. The camera pose stamp is an indexing embedding, not a new physical entity. The main free parameters are the empirically selected mask overlap rate, the unreported filter gamma, and the MLP architecture.

free parameters (3)
  • Mask overlapping rate OR = 0.25
    Selected empirically in Section 4.3 via ablation on multiple datasets; the paper states 'Empirically, we selected overlap rate of all experiments within 0.25.'
  • High-frequency filter scale gamma = Not reported
    Hyperparameter controlling the low-pass filter size in Eq. 11; no value or selection procedure is given.
  • MLP depth and width, positional encoding layers = D=8, W=512, L=6
    Architecture choices stated in Section 4.1 with no ablation or justification.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SCI imaging process is exactly described by Y = sum_i X_i circle M_i + Z (Eq. 5), with known masks and additive noise.
    This model is used to synthesize the compressed image from rendered frames for the training loss. Any mismatch with real hardware would make the reconstruction incorrect.
  • domain assumption A single fixed camera with transformed Gaussians can reproduce any camera pose, so moving Gaussians is equivalent to moving the camera (Section 3.3).
    The paper asserts this equivalence but provides no experiment with varied camera poses or recovered pose accuracy.
  • domain assumption The smooth MLP transformation network will propagate gradients from effective to ineffective Gaussians and converge to the true scene configuration (Section 3.3, Fig. 3).
    This is an optimization landscape assumption with no convergence analysis or empirical validation beyond final image metrics.
  • ad hoc to paper The Nyquist-based high-frequency filter with scale gamma / nu_hat_i correctly removes aliasing without damaging real image content (Eq. 11).
    Motivated by sampling theory, but the filter scale depends on the free parameter gamma, which is not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCIGS: 3D Gaussians Splatting from a Snapshot Compressive Image." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMIPPBRE

@misc{pith2026241112471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCIGS: 3D Gaussians Splatting from a Snapshot Compressive Image},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMIPPBRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12471}
}
read the original abstract

Snapshot Compressive Imaging (SCI) offers a possibility for capturing information in high-speed dynamic scenes, requiring efficient reconstruction method to recover scene information. Despite promising results, current deep learning-based and NeRF-based reconstruction methods face challenges: 1) deep learning-based reconstruction methods struggle to maintain 3D structural consistency within scenes, and 2) NeRF-based reconstruction methods still face limitations in handling dynamic scenes. To address these challenges, we propose SCIGS, a variant of 3DGS, and develop a primitive-level transformation network that utilizes camera pose stamps and Gaussian primitive coordinates as embedding vectors. This approach resolves the necessity of camera pose in vanilla 3DGS and enhances multi-view 3D structural consistency in dynamic scenes by utilizing transformed primitives. Additionally, a high-frequency filter is introduced to eliminate the artifacts generated during the transformation. The proposed SCIGS is the first to reconstruct a 3D explicit scene from a single compressed image, extending its application to dynamic 3D scenes. Experiments on both static and dynamic scenes demonstrate that SCIGS not only enhances SCI decoding but also outperforms current state-of-the-art methods in reconstructing dynamic 3D scenes from a single compressed image. The code will be made available upon publication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a single compressed image of a dynamic scene as input, the proposed SCIGS can reconstruct a high-quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of the proposed SCIGS. Given a set of randomly initialized 3D Gaussians and a camera pose, and introducing the same number of camera pose stamps as the compression ratio, our transformation network takes the Gaussian primitives and the camera pose stamps as inputs, followed by a high-frequency filter, outputs 3D Gaussians under different camera pose stamps. These camera-pose-aware transformed 3D Gaussia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) illustrates an effective Gaussian, (b) illustrates an ineffective Gaussian. (c) and (d) show how the transformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The illustration of the principle of the pro￾posed high-frequency filter. The Gaussians that cause high-frequency artifacts are filtered to eliminate the arti￾facts. scene, enabling SCIGS to reconstruct dynamic scenes from a single SCI image. 3.4. High-frequency Filter…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative evaluations on the synthetic dataset compare our proposed method (SCIGS) with the SOTA SCI image method (SCINeRF). From top to bottom are two static scenes (factory and tanabata) and two dynamic scenes (roundabout and flamingo). The experiments show that ou…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study on the high-frequency filter of SCIGS in both static and dynamic scenes. The first two columns represent static scenes (factory and vender), while the last two columns show dynamic scenes (flamingo and roundabout). As shown, the addition of the high-freq…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition , pages 5470–5479, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    6dgs: 6d pose esti- mation from a single image and a 3d gaussian splatting model

    Matteo Bortolon, Theodore Tsesmelis, Stuart James, Fabio Poiesi, and Alessio Del Bue. 6dgs: 6d pose esti- mation from a single image and a 3d gaussian splatting model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15484 , 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal re- construction from highly incomplete frequency infor- mation

    Emmanuel J Cand` es, Justin Romberg, and Terence Tao. Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal re- construction from highly incomplete frequency infor- mation. IEEE Transactions on information theory , 52 (2):489–509, 2006. 1

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Hybrid cnn-transformer architecture for efficient large- scale video snapshot compressive imaging

    Miao Cao, Lishun Wang, Mingyu Zhu, and Xin Yuan. Hybrid cnn-transformer architecture for efficient large- scale video snapshot compressive imaging. Interna- tional Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–20, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Birnat: Bidirectional recurrent neural networks with adversar- ial training for video snapshot compressive imaging

    Ziheng Cheng, Ruiying Lu, Zhengjue Wang, Hao Zhang, Bo Chen, Ziyi Meng, and Xin Yuan. Birnat: Bidirectional recurrent neural networks with adversar- ial training for video snapshot compressive imaging. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 258–275. Springer, 2020. 1, 2

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Memory- efficient network for large-scale video compressive sens- ing

    Ziheng Cheng, Bo Chen, Guanliang Liu, Hao Zhang, Ruiying Lu, Zhengjue Wang, and Xin Yuan. Memory- efficient network for large-scale video compressive sens- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 16246–16255, 2021. 1, 2

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Compressive sensing via nonlocal low- rank regularization

    Weisheng Dong, Guangming Shi, Xin Li, Yi Ma, and Feng Huang. Compressive sensing via nonlocal low- rank regularization. IEEE transactions on image pro- cessing, 23(8):3618–3632, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Compressed sensing

    David L Donoho. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans- actions on information theory , 52(4):1289–1306, 2006. 1

    work page 2006

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 2

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Efros, and Xiaolong Wang

    Yang Fu, Sifei Liu, Amey Kulkarni, Jan Kautz, Alexei A. Efros, and Xiaolong Wang. Colmap-free 3d gaussian splatting, 2024. 3

    2024

  3. [11]

    Video from a sin- gle coded exposure photograph using a learned over- complete dictionary

    Yasunobu Hitomi, Jinwei Gu, Mohit Gupta, Tomoo Mitsunaga, and Shree K Nayar. Video from a sin- gle coded exposure photograph using a learned over- complete dictionary. In 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 287–294. IEEE, 2011. 2

    2011

  4. [12]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIG- GRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , pages 1–11, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    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 Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  6. [14]

    Scinerf: Neural radiance fields from a snapshot compressive image

    Yunhao Li, Xiaodong Wang, Ping Wang, Xin Yuan, and Peidong Liu. Scinerf: Neural radiance fields from a snapshot compressive image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 10542–10552, 2024. 2, 6, 1, 3

    2024

  7. [15]

    Generalized alternating projection for weighted-2,1 minimization with applications to model-based compressive sens- ing

    Xuejun Liao, Hui Li, and Lawrence Carin. Generalized alternating projection for weighted-2,1 minimization with applications to model-based compressive sens- ing. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 7(2):797–823,

  8. [16]

    Ef- ficient space-time sampling with pixel-wise coded ex- posure for high-speed imaging

    Dengyu Liu, Jinwei Gu, Yasunobu Hitomi, Mohit Gupta, Tomoo Mitsunaga, and Shree K Nayar. Ef- ficient space-time sampling with pixel-wise coded ex- posure for high-speed imaging. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 36(2):248– 260, 2013. 2

    2013

  9. [17]

    Rank minimization for snapshot com- pressive imaging

    Yang Liu, Xin Yuan, Jinli Suo, David J Brady, and Qionghai Dai. Rank minimization for snapshot com- pressive imaging. IEEE transactions on pattern analy- sis and machine intelligence , 41(12):2990–3006, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  10. [18]

    Coded aperture compressive temporal imaging

    Patrick Llull, Xuejun Liao, Xin Yuan, Jianbo Yang, David Kittle, Lawrence Carin, Guillermo Sapiro, and David J Brady. Coded aperture compressive temporal imaging. Optics express, 21(9):10526–10545, 2013. 1

    2013

  11. [19]

    Deblur-nerf: Neural radiance fields from blurry images

    Li Ma, Xiaoyu Li, Jing Liao, Qi Zhang, Xuan Wang, Jue Wang, and Pedro V Sander. Deblur-nerf: Neural radiance fields from blurry images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12861–12870, 2022. 6

    2022

  12. [20]

    Video denoising, deblocking, and enhancement through separable 4-d nonlocal spa- tiotemporal transforms

    Matteo Maggioni, Giacomo Boracchi, Alessandro Foi, and Karen Egiazarian. Video denoising, deblocking, and enhancement through separable 4-d nonlocal spa- tiotemporal transforms. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 21(9):3952–3966, 2012. 2

    2012

  13. [21]

    Gap-net for snapshot compressive imaging

    Ziyi Meng, Shirin Jalali, and Xin Yuan. Gap-net for snapshot compressive imaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08364, 2020. 1

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz- Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , 38 (4):1–14, 2019. 6

    2019

  15. [23]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1): 99–106, 2021. 2, 6

    2021

  16. [24]

    The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation

    Jordi Pont-Tuset, Federico Perazzi, Sergi Caelles, Pablo Arbel´ aez, Alex Sorkine-Hornung, and Luc Van Gool. The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00675 , 2017. 6

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deep learning for video compressive sensing

    Mu Qiao, Ziyi Meng, Jiawei Ma, and Xin Yuan. Deep learning for video compressive sensing. Apl Photonics, 5(3), 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  18. [26]

    Snapshot temporal compressive microscopy using an iterative algorithm with untrained neural networks

    Mu Qiao, Xuan Liu, and Xin Yuan. Snapshot temporal compressive microscopy using an iterative algorithm with untrained neural networks. Optics Letters, 46(8): 1888–1891, 2021. 2

    2021

  19. [27]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 4104–4113, 2016. 4

    2016

  20. [28]

    icomma: In- verting 3d gaussians splatting for camera pose esti- mation via comparing and matching

    Yuan Sun, Xuan Wang, Yunfan Zhang, Jie Zhang, Caigui Jiang, Yu Guo, and Fei Wang. icomma: In- verting 3d gaussians splatting for camera pose esti- mation via comparing and matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09031, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction

    Singanallur V Venkatakrishnan, Charles A Bouman, and Brendt Wohlberg. Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction. In 2013 IEEE global conference on signal and information processing , pages 945–948. IEEE, 2013. 2

    2013

  22. [30]

    Spatial-temporal transformer for video snapshot com- pressive imaging

    Lishun Wang, Miao Cao, Yong Zhong, and Xin Yuan. Spatial-temporal transformer for video snapshot com- pressive imaging. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(7):9072–9089, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  23. [31]

    Efficientsci: Densely connected network with space-time factoriza- tion for large-scale video snapshot compressive imag- ing

    Lishun Wang, Miao Cao, and Xin Yuan. Efficientsci: Densely connected network with space-time factoriza- tion for large-scale video snapshot compressive imag- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 18477– 18486, 2023. 1...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters

    Zirui Wang, Shangzhe Wu, Weidi Xie, Min Chen, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07064, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 20310–203...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Adaptive deep pnp algorithm for video snapshot compressive imaging

    Zongliang Wu, Chengshuai Yang, Xiongfei Su, and Xin Yuan. Adaptive deep pnp algorithm for video snapshot compressive imaging. International Journal of Com- puter Vision , 131(7):1662–1679, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

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

    Chi Yan, Delin Qu, Dan Xu, Bin Zhao, Zhigang Wang, Dong Wang, and Xuelong Li. Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 19595–19604, 2024. 3

    2024

  28. [36]

    Compressive sensing by learning a gaussian mixture model from measurements

    Jianbo Yang, Xuejun Liao, Xin Yuan, Patrick Llull, David J Brady, Guillermo Sapiro, and Lawrence Carin. Compressive sensing by learning a gaussian mixture model from measurements. IEEE Transactions on Im- age Processing, 24(1):106–119, 2014. 1, 2

    2014

  29. [37]

    Video compressive sensing using gaussian mixture models

    Jianbo Yang, Xin Yuan, Xuejun Liao, Patrick Llull, David J Brady, Guillermo Sapiro, and Lawrence Carin. Video compressive sensing using gaussian mixture models. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 23 (11):4863–4878, 2014. 2

    2014

  30. [38]

    Deformable 3d gaus- sians for high-fidelity monocular dynamic scene recon- struction

    Ziyi Yang, Xinyu Gao, Wen Zhou, Shaohui Jiao, Yuqing Zhang, and Xiaogang Jin. Deformable 3d gaus- sians for high-fidelity monocular dynamic scene recon- struction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20331–20341, 2024. 3

    2024

  31. [39]

    Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sat- tler, and Andreas Geiger. Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 19447–19456, 2024. 2, 5

    2024

  32. [40]

    Generalized alternating projection based total variation minimization for compressive sensing

    Xin Yuan. Generalized alternating projection based total variation minimization for compressive sensing. In 2016 IEEE International conference on image pro- cessing (ICIP), pages 2539–2543. IEEE, 2016. 1, 2, 6, 3

    2016

  33. [41]

    Plug-and-play algorithms for large-scale snapshot com- pressive imaging

    Xin Yuan, Yang Liu, Jinli Suo, and Qionghai Dai. Plug-and-play algorithms for large-scale snapshot com- pressive imaging. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 1447–1457, 2020. 2, 6, 1, 3

    2020

  34. [42]

    Snapshot compressive imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications

    Xin Yuan, David J Brady, and Aggelos K Katsaggelos. Snapshot compressive imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 38(2):65–88, 2021. 1

    2021

  35. [43]

    Plug-and-play algorithms for video snapshot compressive imaging

    Xin Yuan, Yang Liu, Jinli Suo, Fredo Durand, and Qionghai Dai. Plug-and-play algorithms for video snapshot compressive imaging. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 44(10): 7093–7111, 2021. 6, 1, 2, 3

    2021

  36. [44]

    The unreasonable ef- fectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable ef- fectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 586–595, 2018. 6 SCIGS: 3D Gaussians ...

    2018

Pith tools

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