Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Diffusion Features for Zero-Shot 6DoF Object Pose Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Latent diffusion model features, extracted from Stable Diffusion's decoder, improve zero-shot 6DoF object pose estimation over Vision Transformer features, raising Average Recall by up to 27% on standard benchmarks.

desk verdict Diffusion features for zero-shot pose estimation: a useful pipeline paper, but the claim that LDM features beat ViT features is not actually isolated from the pipeline changes that come with it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16668 v1 pith:K6ET7QN5 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV

Bernd Von Gimborn , Philipp Ausserlechner , Markus Vincze , Stefan Thalhammer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords zero-shotobjectposeestimation6DoFlatentdiffusionmodelsstablevisiontransformerssemanticcorrespondencetemplatematchinghyperfeatures
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

Zero-shot 6DoF object pose estimation identifies an object's position and orientation from a single image without training on that object. This paper asks whether features extracted by a latent diffusion model, specifically Stable Diffusion, can outperform the Vision Transformer features that current zero-shot pipelines rely on. It presents DZOP, a modified ZS6D pipeline in which Stable Diffusion features are used for template matching and for estimating pixel correspondences, the latter via a PCA co-projection and cluster-wise cosine similarity matching of aggregated decoder hyperfeatures. On the LMO, YCBV, and TLESS benchmarks, the diffusion-based pipeline raises Average Recall by 10.08%, 12.65%, and 27.14% relative to the DINO-based baseline, with larger gains at small error tolerances. The implication is that generative model backbones are a competitive, sometimes superior, feature source for zero-shot pose estimation, not just for image synthesis.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the PCA co-projection of aggregated diffusion hyperfeatures. Hyperfeatures are pixel-wise feature vectors formed by aggregating multiple feature maps from different layers of the diffusion decoder. Query and template feature maps from Stable Diffusion's decoder layers 2, 5, 8, and 11 are concatenated and projected with a shared PCA basis; the co-projected features are split back, upsampled to the resolution of the finest layer, and concatenated along the feature dimension. K-means clustering then creates surface clusters in both embeddings, and correspondences are estimated only within clusters that match by cosine similarity, with RANSAC-based fundamental matrix filtering to discard mismatched clusters and a sub-pixel refinement step for small or distant objects. This co-projection is the load-bearing element that creates a common space in which cluster-wise cosine similarity can match query pixels to template pixels.

What would settle it

Take the DZOP pipeline and swap the Stable Diffusion backbone for DINOv2 features, keeping the co-projection, clustering, and pose solving unchanged. If Average Recall on LMO, YCBV, and TLESS matches or exceeds the reported diffusion results, then the main claim that LDM features are more effective than ViT features for this task is refuted. This is directly testable because the infrastructure is already built for the DINO baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Latent Diffusion Model features, taken from the U-Net decoder of Stable Diffusion, are more effective than Vision Transformer features for both template matching and correspondence estimation in zero-shot 6DoF object pose estimation. Under a controlled comparison that keeps segmentation, templates, geometric correspondence retrieval, and pose solving identical to ZS6D, swapping DINO for Stable Diffusion improves Average Recall by 10.08% on LMO, 12.65% on YCBV, and 27.14% on TLESS, while also improving the template accuracy metric Acc15 on all three datasets. The paper further claims that the co-projection of hyperfeatures from decoder layers 2, 5, 8, and 11 into a shared low-dimensional space, followed by cluster-wise matching, is what makes the diffusion features usable for object-level correspondence; ablations on LMO show that removing co-projection or clustering degrades performance. The result is a template-based zero-shot pose estimator that outperforms the ViT baseline and, on LMO and YCBV, also outperforms zero-shot methods that fine-tune their feature extractor.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that the PCA co-projection of Stable Diffusion decoder features from layers 2, 5, 8, and 11 creates a shared space where cluster-wise cosine similarity reliably matches pixel correspondences; this is validated only on LMO and not shown to transfer to the other datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zero-shot pose estimation can be built on generative-model features without object-specific fine-tuning, improving accuracy on occluded, textureless, and illumination-varying objects over the ViT baseline.
  • The PCA co-projection and cluster-wise correspondence matching constitute a reusable strategy for adapting diffusion features to object-level matching tasks, not just scene-level correspondence as previously shown.
  • The gains at low error tolerances mean diffusion features are useful for applications requiring precise poses, such as robotic grasping, where tight alignment matters.
  • The framework provides a controlled comparison point for evaluating future vision foundation models for pose estimation, as evidenced by the paper's own comparison with other ViT-based methods.
  • The method inherits a computational cost of 50 diffusion steps per template and query, so runtime efficiency remains a bottleneck for real-time use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely extension not tested here is whether the co-projection step could be replaced by a learned projection; if so, the pipeline could adapt to new domains with fewer hand-set hyperparameters.
  • The 27% gain on TLESS hints that diffusion features may encode shape and geometry priors that are especially valuable when texture is absent; a focused study varying texture and symmetry would test that conjecture.
  • The paper's comparison with FoundPose suggests that newer ViT features (DINOv2) applied through a similar template-matching strategy can also outperform DINO; this implies the feature extractor choice, rather than the architecture family, may be the dominant factor. A broader benchmark across more backbones would clarify this.
  • If SD features are distilled into a faster extractor, the 50-step denoising cost could be amortized, making the zero-shot pose pipeline practical for online robotics; the paper does not address this but the architecture permits it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DZOP, a zero-shot 6DoF object pose estimation pipeline that replaces the DINO ViT feature extractor used in ZS6D with Stable Diffusion (SD) features. The method uses SD decoder layer 2 features for template matching, aggregates hyperfeatures from layers 2, 5, 8, and 11 with PCA co-projection for correspondence estimation, applies k-means cluster-wise matching with RANSAC, and includes sub-pixel refinement. Experiments on LMO, YCBV, and TLESS report Average Recall improvements over ZS6D of 10.08%, 12.65%, and 27.14%, respectively. The authors claim that LDM features are more effective than ViT features for template matching and zero-shot pose estimation, and they release the source code.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the result would be significant: it would demonstrate that latent diffusion backbones can outperform self-supervised ViTs in a zero-shot pose estimation setting, a task currently dominated by ViT-based feature extractors. The paper has several strengths: it uses the same templates, CNOS segmentations, and PnP solver as ZS6D, making the method-level comparison fair; it provides ablations of the main correspondence stages; and it releases code. However, the headline comparison is not a controlled feature comparison because the pipeline changes simultaneously with the feature extractor. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on additional experiments that isolate the contribution of the LDM features.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 1, Tables 1-2] The reported AR gains of DZOP over ZS6D (10.08% on LMO, 12.65% on YCBV, 27.14% on TLESS) cannot be attributed to the LDM feature family because the comparison changes the feature extractor and the downstream correspondence pipeline simultaneously. The paper states in Sec. 1 that 'to ensure optimal performance with diffusion features, we also modify the downstream pipeline stages,' and Sec. 3.3 introduces PCA co-projection (Eq. 5), k-means cluster-wise matching, RANSAC-based cluster filtering, and sub-pixel refinement. Table 3 shows that the co-projection step alone changes AR from 0.149 to 0.427 on LMO, demonstrating that these components are load-bearing. To support Contribution 2, the authors need a controlled comparison, e.g., DINO features inside the DZOP correspondence pipeline, or SD features inside the original ZS6D pipeline without the additional components.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 6] The hyperparameters used in the main experiments (200 clusters, PCA dimension 64, 10 correspondences per cluster, 50 SD timesteps) are selected using LMO ground-truth detections and then applied to the LMO result reported in Tables 1-2. This selection-on-test-data inflates the LMO improvement and weakens the cross-dataset evidence for the central claim. The authors should fix these hyperparameters a priori or use a held-out validation split, e.g., tune on one dataset and report the other two as untuned.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Table 3] The ablations in Table 3 show that co-projection, clustering, and sub-pixel refinement improve DZOP on LMO, but they do not compare DINO features in the same correspondence pipeline. Without a cross-feature ablation, the paper does not establish that the benefits of these components are specific to SD features, nor that LDM features are 'more effective' for pose estimation. Similarly, the template-matching comparison in Table 2 compares SD layer 2 features against DINO features used by ZS6D, but the matching procedures may differ; the paper should clarify whether the template matching mechanism is otherwise identical.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, after Table 1] The text 'The underlined values in Figure 1 indicate the highest AR compared to the ZS6D baseline' should refer to Table 1, not Figure 1.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, first paragraph] The sentence 'Figure 3 shows the influence of the correspondence matching functions on the AR and runtime' is a cross-reference error; the ablation results are presented in Table 3, while Figure 3 shows per-object AR.
  3. [Eq. 5] The notation in Eq. (5) is unclear: it writes the projected features as the product of the union of features with V, but does not define how the union is formed or how the result is partitioned into query and template parts. Please define the concatenation and splitting explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, metrics] The sentence 'Where is of the metrics are an average recall over different error thresholds of θ' is grammatically garbled and should be rewritten.
  5. [Table 1] The table heading describes the methods as 'single-shot monocular,' but HiPose (Ref. [5]) is an RGB-D method; please clarify or correct the categorization.
  6. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. 6] In the sub-pixel refinement formula, the indices i and j are used both as summation variables and as coordinate indices, which is confusing; please define the local neighborhood coordinates explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical comparison against external ground-truth pose benchmarks, and no target quantity is defined in terms of the method's own outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain in DZOP is an empirical pipeline, not a formal derivation from assumptions. Template matching (Eq. 4), correspondence estimation (Eqs. 5-6), and PnP pose retrieval all feed into metrics (AR, Acc15) that are computed against ground-truth poses from LMO, YCBV, and TLESS, so the reported quantities are externally falsifiable rather than equivalent to the inputs by construction. The only self-citation is the ZS6D baseline (Ref. [6]), but that is a published method with its own external evaluation; using it as the comparison baseline is standard practice and is not load-bearing circularity. The PCA co-projection in Eq. 5 is fit to the query and template features, but the correspondence quality is evaluated by final pose accuracy against ground truth, not by the projection itself. Hyperparameters (200 clusters, PCA dimension 64, 10 correspondences, 50 timesteps) are chosen via ablations on LMO (Fig. 6) and then applied to the LMO headline result; this is a selection-bias/statistical concern about the strength of the evidence, not a circular reduction, because the reported AR is still a measurement of an independent ground-truth quantity. The skeptic's point that the DZOP-vs-ZS6D comparison changes both the feature extractor and downstream stages is a valid confound for causal attribution of the gains to LDM features, but it does not make the 'prediction' equal to the input; it is an experimental-control issue rather than circularity. No circular step can be exhibited from the text.

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

The central claim rests on the empirical validity of Stable Diffusion features for correspondence and on standard template-based pose estimation assumptions. The main tuned quantities are the four hyperparameters selected on LMO. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced; the hyperfeature co-projection is a processing strategy.

free parameters (4)
  • number of correspondence clusters = 200
    Selected by ablation on LMO (Figure 6, top left); peak AR at 200.
  • PCA co-projection dimension = 64
    Selected by ablation on LMO (Figure 6, top right); little sensitivity but peak at 64.
  • correspondences per cluster = 10
    Selected by ablation on LMO (Figure 6, bottom left); influence reported as insignificant.
  • Stable Diffusion timesteps for feature extraction = 50
    Selected by ablation on LMO (Figure 6, bottom right); peak at 50, decreasing afterward.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SD U-Net decoder feature maps from layers 2, 5, 8, and 11 provide a semantically aligned multiscale representation for object-level correspondence
    Assumed in Sections 3.1 and 3.3, drawing on prior work [15, 54]; validated only on the three test datasets.
  • domain assumption The rendered template set of 300 views per object covers the viewpoint sphere sufficiently for nearest-template retrieval to recover coarse pose
    Standard template-based assumption inherited from ZS6D [6] and used in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption CNOS masks are accurate enough to serve as object location priors for both methods
    Used in Section 3; since both ZS6D and DZOP use CNOS, this does not drive the relative improvement.
  • standard math BOP metrics (VSD, MSSD, MSPD) in Eq. 7 are computed correctly and match the BOP challenge definitions
    Standard benchmark metrics [4]; assumed correctly implemented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion Features for Zero-Shot 6DoF Object Pose Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6ET7QN5

@misc{pith2026241116668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion Features for Zero-Shot 6DoF Object Pose Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6ET7QN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16668}
}
read the original abstract

Zero-shot object pose estimation enables the retrieval of object poses from images without necessitating object-specific training. In recent approaches this is facilitated by vision foundation models (VFM), which are pre-trained models that are effectively general-purpose feature extractors. The characteristics exhibited by these VFMs vary depending on the training data, network architecture, and training paradigm. The prevailing choice in this field are self-supervised Vision Transformers (ViT). This study assesses the influence of Latent Diffusion Model (LDM) backbones on zero-shot pose estimation. In order to facilitate a comparison between the two families of models on a common ground we adopt and modify a recent approach. Therefore, a template-based multi-staged method for estimating poses in a zero-shot fashion using LDMs is presented. The efficacy of the proposed approach is empirically evaluated on three standard datasets for object-specific 6DoF pose estimation. The experiments demonstrate an Average Recall improvement of up to 27% over the ViT baseline. The source code is available at: https://github.com/BvG1993/DZOP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DZOP overview For estimating poses a scene-level RGB image and object meshes of the object of interest are expected. The features of the query and template images are extracted using Stable Diffusion [14]. Templates are matched using the cosine similarity on the feature maps of the second decoder layer of U-net’s [56] second decoder layer. Semantic correspondences are estimated from clustered hyperfeatures. Ultimate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Semantic correspondence estimation First, the query and template features are co￾projected to a lower-dimensional space. Subsequently, corresponding clusters are created using cosine similarity. Ultimately, features are matched within corresponding clusters and refined to sub-pixel accuracy. are matched. Consequently, Principle Component Analysis (PCA) clustering is performed on the concatenated hyperfeatures [15]: … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Per-object AR Reported are the per object improvements of DZOP in comparison to ZS6D. Dataset Pose Error Acc15 AR LMO 11.29% 8.61% 10.08% YCBV 4.89% 8.75% 12.65% TLESS -1.14% 1.39% 27.14% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AR over error tolerance threshold Presented are the AR values for different upper bounds of θ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results Exemple pose estimates from DZOP and ZS6D. Blue, green, and red boxes indicate ground truth, correct, and incorrect pose estimates respectively. which is intuitive since they are trained for image flip invariance. Newer VFMs may alleviate this probl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hyperparameter ablations Ablated are the main hyperparameters of DZOP: the number of correspondence clusters, the dimensionality of the hyperfeatures, the number of cluster-wise semantic correspondences used for geometric correspondence retrieval, and the timestep of S…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robotic continuous grasping system by shape transformer-guided multiobject category-level 6-d pose estimation

    Jian Liu, Wei Sun, Chongpei Liu, Xing Zhang, and Qiang Fu. Robotic continuous grasping system by shape transformer-guided multiobject category-level 6-d pose estimation. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(11):11171–11181, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Challenges for monocular 6-d object pose estimation in robotics

    Stefan Thalhammer, Dominik Bauer, Peter H¨ onig, Jean-Baptiste Weibel, Jos´ e Garc ´ ıa-Rodr ´ ıguez, and Markus Vincze. Challenges for monocular 6-d object pose estimation in robotics. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:4065–4084, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Blenderproc: Reducing the reality gap with photorealistic rendering

    Maximilian Denninger, Martin Sundermeyer, Dominik Winkelbauer, Dmitry Olefir, Tomas Hodan, Youssef Zidan, Mohamad Elbadrawy, Markus Knauer, Harinandan Katam, and Ahsan Lodhi. Blenderproc: Reducing the reality gap with photorealistic rendering. 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Bop challenge 2023 on detection segmentation and pose estimation of seen and unseen rigid objects

    Tomas Hodan, Martin Sundermeyer, Yann Labbe, Van Nguyen Nguyen, Gu Wang, Eric Brach- mann, Bertram Drost, Vincent Lepetit, Carsten Rother, and Jiri Matas. Bop challenge 2023 on detection segmentation and pose estimation of seen and unseen rigid objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5610–5619, 2024

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Hipose: Hierarchical binary surface encoding and correspondence pruning for rgb-d 6dof object pose estimation

    Yongliang Lin, Yongzhi Su, Praveen Nathan, Sandeep Inuganti, Yan Di, Martin Sundermeyer, Fabian Manhardt, Didier Stricker, Jason Rambach, and Yu Zhang. Hipose: Hierarchical binary surface encoding and correspondence pruning for rgb-d 6dof object pose estimation. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pag...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Zs6d: Zero-shot 6d object pose estimation using vision transformers

    Philipp Ausserlechner, David Haberger, Stefan Thalhammer, Jean-Baptiste Weibel, and Markus Vincze. Zs6d: Zero-shot 6d object pose estimation using vision transformers. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 463–469. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Megapose: 6d pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare

    Yann Labb´ e, Lucas Manuelli, Arsalan Mousavian, Stephen Tyree, Stan Birchfield, Jonathan Trem- blay, Justin Carpentier, Mathieu Aubry, Dieter Fox, and Josef Sivic. Megapose: 6d pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare. In CoRL 2022-Conference on Robot Learning, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Foundpose: Unseen object pose estimation with foundation features

    Evin Pınar ¨Ornek, Yann Labb´ e, Bugra Tekin, Lingni Ma, Cem Keskin, Christian Forster, and Tomas Hodan. Foundpose: Unseen object pose estimation with foundation features. pages 163– 182, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Osop: A multi-stage one shot object pose estimation framework

    Ivan Shugurov, Fu Li, Benjamin Busam, and Slobodan Ilic. Osop: A multi-stage one shot object pose estimation framework. In 2022 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6835–6844, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estima- tion and tracking of novel objects

    Bowen Wen, Wei Yang, Jan Kautz, and Stan Birchfield. Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estima- tion and tracking of novel objects. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17868–17879, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Zero123-6d: Zero-shot novel view syn- thesis for rgb category-level 6d pose estimation

    Francesco Di Felice, Alberto Remus, Stefano Gasperini, Benjamin Busam, Lionel Ott, Federico Tombari, Roland Siegwart, and Carlo Alberto Avizzano. Zero123-6d: Zero-shot novel view syn- thesis for rgb category-level 6d pose estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14279, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv´ e J´ egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In 2021Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9650–9660. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Epnp: An accurate o(n) solution to the pnp problem

    Vincent Lepetit, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Pascal Fua. Epnp: An accurate o(n) solution to the pnp problem. International Journal of Computer Vision, 81(2):155–166, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨ orn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In 2022 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684–10695, June 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements dino for zero- shot semantic correspondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Luisa Polania Cabrera, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements dino for zero- shot semantic correspondence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Learning 6d object pose estimation using 3d object coordinates

    Eric Brachmann, Alexander Krull, Frank Michel, Stefan Gumhold, Jamie Shotton, and Carsten Rother. Learning 6d object pose estimation using 3d object coordinates. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Pa...

    2014

  9. [17]

    Xiang, T

    Y. Xiang, T. Schmidt, V. Narayanan, and D. Fox. Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes. In 2018 Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    T-less: An rgb-d dataset for 6d pose estimation of texture-less objects

    Tomas Hodan, Frank Michel, Eric Brachmann, Wadim Kehl, Anders Buch, Dirk Kraft, Bertram Drost, Joao Vidal, Stephan Ihrke, Xenophon Zabulis, et al. T-less: An rgb-d dataset for 6d pose estimation of texture-less objects. In 2017 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Compute...

    2017

  11. [19]

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

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In 2021 Internationa...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Cad-model recognition and 6dof pose estimation using 3d cues

    Aitor Aldoma, Markus Vincze, Nico Blodow, David Gossow, Suat Gedikli, Radu Bogdan Rusu, and Gary Bradski. Cad-model recognition and 6dof pose estimation using 3d cues. In 2011 IEEE international conference on computer vision workshops (ICCV workshops), pages 585–592. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Pose estimation using local structure-specific shape and appearance context

    Anders Glent Buch, Dirk Kraft, Joni-Kristian Kamarainen, Henrik Gordon Petersen, and Norbert Kr¨ uger. Pose estimation using local structure-specific shape and appearance context. In 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pages 2080–2087. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Model globally, match locally: Ef- ficient and robust 3d object recognition

    Bertram Drost, Markus Ulrich, Nassir Navab, and Slobodan Ilic. Model globally, match locally: Ef- ficient and robust 3d object recognition. In 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 998–1005. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Model based training, detection and pose estimation of texture-less 3d objects in heavily cluttered scenes

    Stefan Hinterstoisser, Vincent Lepetit, Slobodan Ilic, Stefan Holzer, Gary Bradski, Kurt Konolige, and Nassir Navab. Model based training, detection and pose estimation of texture-less 3d objects in heavily cluttered scenes. In Computer Vision–ACCV 2012: 11th Asian Conference ...

    2012

  16. [24]

    Faster and finer pose estimation for multiple instance objects in a single rgb image

    Lee Aing, Wen-Nung Lie, and Guo-Shiang Lin. Faster and finer pose estimation for multiple instance objects in a single rgb image. Image and Vision Computing, 130:104618, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Irpe: Instance-level reconstruction-based 6d pose estimator

    Le Jin, Guoshun Zhou, Zherong Liu, Yuanchao Yu, Teng Zhang, Minghui Yang, and Jun Zhou. Irpe: Instance-level reconstruction-based 6d pose estimator. Image and Vision Computing, page 105340, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ssd-6d: Making rgb-based 3d detection and 6d pose estimation great again

    Wadim Kehl, Fabian Manhardt, Federico Tombari, Slobodan Ilic, and Nassir Navab. Ssd-6d: Making rgb-based 3d detection and 6d pose estimation great again. In 2017 Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1521–1529, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Cosypose: Consistent multi-view multi-object 6d pose estimation

    Yann Labb´ e, Justin Carpentier, Mathieu Aubry, and Josef Sivic. Cosypose: Consistent multi-view multi-object 6d pose estimation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVII 16, pages 574–591. Springer, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    A dynamic keypoint selection network for 6dof pose estimation

    Haowen Sun, Taiyong Wang, and Enlin Yu. A dynamic keypoint selection network for 6dof pose estimation. Image and Vision Computing, 118:104372, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Real-time seamless single shot 6d object pose prediction

    Bugra Tekin, Sudipta N Sinha, and Pascal Fua. Real-time seamless single shot 6d object pose prediction. In 2018 Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 292–301, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gdr-net: Geometry-guided direct regression network for monocular 6d object pose estimation

    Gu Wang, Fabian Manhardt, Federico Tombari, and Xiangyang Ji. Gdr-net: Geometry-guided direct regression network for monocular 6d object pose estimation. In 2021 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16611–16621, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Oa-pose: Occlusion-aware monoc- ular 6-dof object pose estimation under geometry alignment for robot manipulation

    Jikun Wang, Luqing Luo, Weixiang Liang, and Zhi-Xin Yang. Oa-pose: Occlusion-aware monoc- ular 6-dof object pose estimation under geometry alignment for robot manipulation. Pattern Recognition, 154:110576, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Multiple geometry representations for 6d object pose estimation in occluded or truncated scenes

    Jichun Wang, Lemiao Qiu, Guodong Yi, Shuyou Zhang, and Yang Wang. Multiple geometry representations for 6d object pose estimation in occluded or truncated scenes. Pattern Recognition, 132:108903, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Geometric-aware dense matching network for 6d pose estimation of objects from rgb-d images

    Chenrui Wu, Long Chen, Shenglong Wang, Han Yang, and Junjie Jiang. Geometric-aware dense matching network for 6d pose estimation of objects from rgb-d images. Pattern Recognition, 137:109293, 2023. 14

    2023

  26. [34]

    Gpv-pose: Category-level object pose estimation via geometry-guided point-wise voting

    Yan Di, Ruida Zhang, Zhiqiang Lou, Fabian Manhardt, Xiangyang Ji, Nassir Navab, and Federico Tombari. Gpv-pose: Category-level object pose estimation via geometry-guided point-wise voting. In 2022 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2022

  27. [35]

    i2c-net: using instance-level neural networks for monocular category-level 6d pose estimation

    Alberto Remus, Salvatore D’Avella, Francesco Di Felice, Paolo Tripicchio, and Carlo Alberto Avizzano. i2c-net: using instance-level neural networks for monocular category-level 6d pose estimation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(3):1515–1522, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation

    He Wang, Srinath Sridhar, Jingwei Huang, Julien Valentin, Shuran Song, and Leonidas J Guibas. Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation. In 2019 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pa...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Templates for 3d object pose estimation revisited: Generalization to new objects and robustness to occlusions

    Van Nguyen Nguyen, Yinlin Hu, Yang Xiao, Mathieu Salzmann, and Vincent Lepetit. Templates for 3d object pose estimation revisited: Generalization to new objects and robustness to occlusions. In 2022 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognit...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Self- supervised vision transformers for 3d pose estimation of novel objects

    Stefan Thalhammer, Jean-Baptiste Weibel, Markus Vincze, and Jose Garcia-Rodriguez. Self- supervised vision transformers for 3d pose estimation of novel objects. Image and Vision Comput- ing, 139:104816, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Zero-shot category-level object pose estimation

    Walter Goodwin, Sagar Vaze, Ioannis Havoutis, and Ingmar Posner. Zero-shot category-level object pose estimation. In 2022 Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Gigapose: Fast and robust novel object pose estimation via one correspondence

    Van Nguyen Nguyen, Thibault Groueix, Mathieu Salzmann, and Vincent Lepetit. Gigapose: Fast and robust novel object pose estimation via one correspondence. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9903–9913, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sam-6d: Segment anything model meets zero-shot 6d object pose estimation

    Jiehong Lin, Lihua Liu, Dekun Lu, and Kui Jia. Sam-6d: Segment anything model meets zero-shot 6d object pose estimation. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 27906–27916, June 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    6d-diff: A keypoint diffusion framework for 6d object pose estimation

    Li Xu, Haoxuan Qu, Yujun Cai, and Jun Liu. 6d-diff: A keypoint diffusion framework for 6d object pose estimation. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9676–9686, June 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Secondpose: Se (3)-consistent dual-stream feature fusion for category-level pose estimation

    Yamei Chen, Yan Di, Guangyao Zhai, Fabian Manhardt, Chenyangguang Zhang, Ruida Zhang, Federico Tombari, Nassir Navab, and Benjamin Busam. Secondpose: Se (3)-consistent dual-stream feature fusion for category-level pose estimation. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. In 2023 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth´ ee Darcet, Th´ eo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. Transactions on Machine Learning Research Jour...

    2024

  38. [46]

    A general protocol to probe large vision models for 3d physical understanding

    Guanqi Zhan, Chuanxia Zheng, Weidi Xie, and Andrew Zisserman. A general protocol to probe large vision models for 3d physical understanding. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2023), 2023. 15

    2023

  39. [47]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30:5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Glipv2: Unifying localization and vision- language understanding

    Haotian Zhang, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Yen-Chun Chen, Liunian Li, Xiyang Dai, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Jenq-Neng Hwang, and Jianfeng Gao. Glipv2: Unifying localization and vision- language understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:36067–36080, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models

    Quan Vuong, Sergey Levine, Homer Rich Walke, Karl Pertsch, Anikait Singh, Ria Doshi, Charles Xu, Jianlan Luo, Liam Tan, Dhruv Shah, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. In 2nd Workshop on Language and Robot Learning: Language as Grounding (2023), 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In 2022 Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Implicit diffusion models for continuous super-resolution

    Sicheng Gao, Xuhui Liu, Bohan Zeng, Sheng Xu, Yanjing Li, Xiaoyan Luo, Jianzhuang Liu, Xiantong Zhen, and Baochang Zhang. Implicit diffusion models for continuous super-resolution. In 2023 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models

    Yuxin Zhang, Nisha Huang, Fan Tang, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Weiming Dong, and Changsheng Xu. Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models. In 2023 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10146–10156, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Diffusion hyperfeatures: Searching through time and space for semantic correspondence

    Grace Luo, Lisa Dunlap, Dong Huk Park, Aleksander Holynski, and Trevor Darrell. Diffusion hyperfeatures: Searching through time and space for semantic correspondence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Click to grasp: Zero-shot precise manipulation via visual diffusion descriptors, 2024

    Nikolaos Tsagkas, Jack Rome, Subramanian Ramamoorthy, Oisin Mac Aodha, and Chris Xiaoxuan Lu. Click to grasp: Zero-shot precise manipulation via visual diffusion descriptors, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In 2015 Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), pages 234–241, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2003

    2003

  50. [58]

    Cnos: A strong baseline for cad-based novel object segmentation

    Van Nguyen Nguyen, Thibault Groueix, Georgy Ponimatkin, Vincent Lepetit, and Tomas Hodan. Cnos: A strong baseline for cad-based novel object segmentation. In 2023 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2134–2140, 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Pix2pose: Pixel-wise coordinate regression of objects for 6d pose estimation

    Kiru Park, Timothy Patten, and Markus Vincze. Pix2pose: Pixel-wise coordinate regression of objects for 6d pose estimation. In 2019 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 7668–7677, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Wortsman, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural In- for...

    2022

  53. [61]

    On the importance of noise scheduling in diffusion models

    Arash Vahdat, Karsten Kreis, and Jan Kautz. On the importance of noise scheduling in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10759, 2021. 16

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography

    Martin A Fischler and Robert C Bolles. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981

    1981

  55. [63]

    Telling left from right: Identifying geometry-aware semantic correspondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Eric Chen, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Telling left from right: Identifying geometry-aware semantic correspondence. In 2024 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3...

    2024

Pith tools

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