Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

AlphaTablets: A Generic Plane Representation for 3D Planar Reconstruction from Monocular Videos

T0 review · 3 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 The paper introduces AlphaTablets, a 3D plane representation as rectangles with alpha channels, and a bottom-up optimization-and-merging pipeline that reconstructs complete 3D planes from posed monocular video, reporting state-of-the-art…

desk verdict AlphaTablets is a genuinely new plane representation with a strong ScanNet result, but the paper as written contains a wrong depth-normalization equation that must be corrected before the numbers are reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19950 v1 pith:NYLIPH2Z submitted 2024-11-29 cs.CV cs.LG

Yuze He , Wang Zhao , Shaohui Liu , Yubin Hu , Yushi Bai , Yu-Hui Wen , Yong-Jin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords AlphaTablets3Dplanereconstructiondifferentiablerasterizationmonocularvideosuperpixelmergingplanarsegmentationsceneediting
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 introduces AlphaTablets, a way to represent a 3D plane as a textured rectangle with an alpha channel, so the rectangle can carve out arbitrary irregular boundaries while remaining a single continuous surface in 3D. The authors argue that prior representations force a trade-off: 2D masks delineate boundaries precisely but are inconsistent across views, while 3D volumes or point clouds are view-consistent but lose boundary sharpness and surface continuity. They propose a bottom-up pipeline that initializes many small AlphaTablets from superpixels and pretrained monocular depth and normals, then iteratively optimizes them by differentiable rendering and merges compatible neighbors into larger planes. On the ScanNet benchmark the method reports an F-score of 0.456 and segmentation covering of 0.273, both above the previous state of the art (PlanarRecon: 0.372 and 0.248). If this holds, AlphaTablets would be a generic plane primitive that supports complete, accurate, editable plane reconstruction without per-dataset training.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AlphaTablet: a 3D rectangle defined by center $p$, orthogonal normal, up, and right vectors, a canonical 2D texture map $c$ with $\alpha$ channel $\alpha$, pixel range $(r_u,r_v)$, and distance ratios $\lambda_u,\lambda_v$ linking texture pixels to 3D size; arbitrary plane shapes are cut out by the $\alpha$ channel. The argument is carried by a differentiable rasterization that converts each tablet to two mesh triangles, rasterizes multiple depth layers per pixel through depth peeling, anti-aliases colors with $\alpha$-aware weights while leaving $\alpha$ unchanged, and composites layers by $\alpha$ blending. On top of this, the reconstruction machinery is a per-scene optimization loop: initialize from superpixel masks and pretrained monocular depth and normals, optimize texture, $\alpha$, normal, and distance under the loss $L = w_1L_{\mathrm{pho}} + w_2L_{\mathrm{ainv}} + w_3L_{\mathrm{dist}} + w_4L_{\mathrm{depth}} + w_5L_{\mathrm{normal}}$, and iteratively merge tablets whose normals, projected centers, and colors are close, until a few hundred tablets represent the scene's planes.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on a sequence where the monocular depth is deliberately corrupted by a constant per-view scale error but the images and poses are unchanged; if the final planes drift by more than a small tolerance from ground truth, that would confirm the reconstruction leans on the pretrained cues rather than on multi-view photometric consistency. A second concrete check: on a scene with strong non-Lambertian reflections or lighting changes, if plane boundaries fragment or F-score drops below PlanarRecon's, the claim that alpha channels capture boundaries robustly under color-consistency optimization would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a 'rectangle soup with alpha channels' can serve as a universal 3D plane representation: each tablet carries a center, normal, up vector, a canonical texture map, an alpha transparency map, and per-axis distance ratios that convert texture pixels into 3D size. Because the alpha channel is learnable and the texture is defined in canonical tablet coordinates, the representation delivers solid surfaces with sharp, arbitrary boundaries, and because all parameters live in 3D, the same tablet is consistent across all views. The paper derives a differentiable rasterizer for these tablets (pseudo-mesh construction, depth-peeled multi-layer rasterization, alpha-weighted anti-aliasing, and alpha compositing) and combines it with a bottom-up pipeline: SLIC superpixels plus pretrained monocular depth and normals initialize dense overlapping tablets; a photometric, alpha-inverse, distortion, depth, and normal loss stack optimizes them; a union-find merging scheme with normal, distance, and color thresholds fuses them into complete planes. The reported results on ScanNet show better geometry and segmentation than PlanarRecon and reconstruct-then-fit baselines, and qualitative results on TUM and Replica indicate generalization.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline presumes that the pretrained monocular depth and normal estimates are accurate and cross-view consistent enough to initialize every superpixel tablet and supervise geometry during optimization; if these cues are biased or inconsistent, the photometric loss alone may not correct the errors and the final planes inherit the bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AlphaTablets can be rendered with existing mesh-based differentiable rasterizers by constructing a pseudo-mesh per tablet, so the representation drops into standard graphics pipelines.
  • Because plane segmentation is treated as bottom-up merging of 3D tablets rather than as learned instance segmentation, the method does not require dataset-specific plane labels or training, and can in principle generalize to any posed video.
  • The alpha channel gives a natural way to represent irregular plane boundaries and partial occlusion, so reconstructed planes should have cleaner edges than voxel- or surfel-based planes.
  • The reconstructed tablets store editable canonical texture maps, so plane-based scene editing (recoloring, texture replacement, style transfer) becomes a direct texture-map operation.
  • The final tablet count for a scene collapses from tens of thousands of initial superpixel tablets to a few hundred, indicating the representation also acts as a compact, progressive planar scene abstraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the per-scene optimization is the real source of generality, then replacing the pretrained monocular cues with better cross-view-consistent depth (for example, a video-depth model) should translate almost directly into higher F-score, since the rest of the pipeline is cue-agnostic.
  • The alpha-aware anti-aliasing rule (blend colors with weights $w$ and $1-w$ but leave alpha un-blended) could be ported to other semi-transparent primitive renderers such as 2D Gaussian splatting to remove boundary strip artifacts.
  • The paper's stated limitations (non-planar superpixels and view-dependent appearance) suggest the next test: a version that splits non-planar superpixels or adds per-tablet view-dependent shading would address exactly the cases where the current photometric loss is weakest.
  • The merging thresholds (normal, distance, color) are fixed hyperparameters; an adaptive or learned merging policy might improve results on scenes with repetitive textures or gradual curvature, but this is an extension the paper does not explore.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AlphaTablets, a 3D plane representation in which each plane is a rectangle with a learnable alpha channel, texture map, and canonical coordinates. The authors derive differentiable rasterization for AlphaTablets by converting them to pseudo-meshes and using multi-layer alpha compositing, then propose a bottom-up reconstruction pipeline from posed monocular videos: SLIC superpixels are initialized as 3D tablets using pretrained monocular depth and normal models, optimized with photometric, depth, normal, distortion, and alpha-inverse losses, and merged iteratively into larger planes. Experiments on ScanNet report an F-score of 0.456 versus 0.372 for PlanarRecon, along with improved plane segmentation metrics (VOI 3.468 vs. 3.622, SC 0.273 vs. 0.248). The paper also shows qualitative generalization to TUM-RGBD and Replica and demonstrates plane-based scene editing.

Significance. If the reported results hold, AlphaTablets is a valuable representation: it combines the completeness of 3D primitives with the boundary precision of 2D masks, supports per-scene optimization without training on the target dataset, and enables straightforward plane-based editing. The gains over PlanarRecon are plausible, and the ablation study broadly supports the importance of the depth/normal losses, distortion loss, anti-aliasing, and merging. The main unresolved issue is the depth-normalization formula in Eq. (9), which as written is inconsistent with standard alpha compositing and could not produce the reported results without a correction or clarification. Because no code is provided, this inconsistency blocks full confidence in the central quantitative claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) defines the rendered depth as d = d_r / ∏_{l=1}^L (1 − α_l). Under the alpha compositing in Eq. (6), the sum of blending weights is ∑_l T_l α_l = 1 − ∏_l (1 − α_l), so the correct expected-depth denominator is 1 − ∏_l (1 − α_l), not the product. As written, the denominator is the final transmittance: for a single opaque layer (α = 1) it is 0, and for two layers with α = 0.5 it overestimates the depth by a factor of 3. Moreover, the paper minimizes Lainv = ∏_l (1 − α_l), driving the denominator toward 0 and making the depth loss ill-posed. The ablation in Table 3 shows that the depth loss contributes to the final F-score (0.425 to 0.456 when added after the normal loss), so this issue is load-bearing. The authors must correct Eq. (9) to the standard normalization, state the actual implementation used, and ideally release code so that the reported numbers can be reproduced.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Initialization and Loss Design] The depth and normal losses in Eqs. (8)–(10) supervise the tablets with the same pretrained models (Metric3Dv2 and Omnidata) that provide the initialization. Consequently, Ldepth and Lnormal are consistency regularizers toward monocular priors rather than independent geometric supervision. The external ScanNet ground-truth evaluation mitigates this concern, but the ablation study in Table 3 does not reveal whether the gains come from fitting the prior or from genuinely improved geometry. I request a concrete test: on a subset of ScanNet, either supervise Ldepth and Lnormal with ground-truth depth and normals, or ablate the two losses entirely without the prior-based supervision, and report how the F-score and other metrics change.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4.1, Merging Scheme] The merging scheme is essential (Table 3 drops from F-score 0.456 to 0.188 without merging), but the merging thresholds are not fully specified. The implementation details give only a 'normal threshold' of 0.93; the angle thresholds θ and θ_s, the distance threshold d, the color threshold c, and the neighborhood size K used in the KD-tree search are not reported in the main text or appendix. Without these values, the merging behavior cannot be reproduced. Please report all merging hyperparameters and, if they are scene-dependent, describe the selection procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), T_i is described as the 'blending weight' of the i-th rasterization layer, but in Sec. 3.2 T is defined as the accumulated transmittance, and the actual blending weight in Eq. (6) is T_l α_l. Please clarify which quantity is used in the distortion loss.
  2. [Table 3] The ablation rows are cumulative, so the depth loss alone contributes +0.031 F-score (from 0.425 to 0.456), not the +0.216 that might be inferred by comparing the first row with the last. The text could make the incremental contributions more explicit.
  3. [Appendix A.3, 3D reconstruction accuracy] The discussion of the higher Acc (0.161 vs. 0.105 for PlanarRecon) attributes the gap to incomplete ground-truth coverage. This is plausible, but the paper should quantify it, e.g., by evaluating accuracy only on voxels covered by ground-truth planes, to distinguish genuine error from coverage effects.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Table 2] The segmentation evaluation transfers reconstructed planes to ground-truth planes using nearest-neighbor assignment; this is reasonable, but a boundary-focused metric (e.g., boundary IoU) would help substantiate the claim of 'precise boundary delineation.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; core results rest on external ScanNet ground truth and in-paper optimization, with only an internal depth/normal consistency regularizer.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, no load-bearing circular step is present. The central claim—state-of-the-art 3D planar reconstruction on ScanNet—is benchmarked against external ground-truth planes (Sec. 4.1, Tables 1–2), not against the method's own inputs. The only reuse of an input as a supervision signal is the depth/normal regularization in Eqs. 8–10: the same pretrained Metric3Dv2/Omnidata estimates dm, nm that initialize the tablets also appear in Ldepth and Lnormal. This is an internal consistency regularizer, not a prediction or a fitted parameter renamed as output; the optimization also contains a photometric term Lpho and the merging scheme, and the losses do not force d ≡ dm by construction. There is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation; the representation, rasterizer, and bottom-up merging are derived in-paper. The Eq. 9 normalization d = d_r / Π(1-α_l) is inconsistent with the alpha-compositing weights in Eq. 6 and would be degenerate for opaque layers, but that is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not a circularity. Accordingly, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity is postulated; the AlphaTablet is the paper's proposed representation, not an unobserved object. The main external dependencies are the pretrained monocular geometry models and the planarity assumption for superpixels. Numerous hyperparameters are hand-tuned with no sensitivity analysis, and several merging thresholds are not reported, which raises the burden on the reader.

free parameters (7)
  • Loss weights w1..w5 = [1.0, 1.0, 20.0, 4.0, 4.0]
    Chosen by hand for the ScanNet experiments; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Optimizer learning rates = 0.01 texture, 0.03 alpha, 1e-4 normal, 5e-4 distance (2e-4 after second merge)
    Hand-tuned; not ablated across scenes.
  • Merging thresholds (theta, theta_s, d, c, K) = not fully reported; normal similarity threshold 0.93 given
    The merging behavior depends on these values; without them the exact algorithm cannot be reproduced.
  • Weight-check alpha threshold = 0.3
    Used to prune tablets that are nearly invisible; no ablation is shown.
  • SLIC superpixel count = about 10k per 1296x968 keyframe
    Initial tablet granularity; no ablation on compactness or count.
  • Rasterization layers L = more than 10 (appendix)
    Depth-peeling layers for alpha compositing; fixed without analysis.
  • Keyframe count and epochs = 9 keyframes per part; 32 separate + 9 joint epochs
    Schedule is hand-set and not ablated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SLIC superpixels approximate planar regions in 3D
    Each superpixel is back-projected to a rectangle; non-planar superpixels violate the model. Acknowledged in Sec. 4.4 as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Metric3Dv2 depth and Omnidata normals are accurate and view-consistent
    Used both to initialize tablets and as depth/normal supervision (Eqs. 8-10); biases propagate into the final reconstruction.
  • domain assumption Scene surfaces are Lambertian with no view-dependent appearance
    The photometric loss assumes color consistency across views; the limitation is stated in Sec. 4.4.
  • domain assumption Input camera poses are known and reliable
    Back-projection and multi-view optimization assume provided poses; no pose-noise modeling is included. Sec. 3.3.
  • standard math NVDiffrast differentiable rasterization and alpha compositing correctly model the rendering equation
    The method relies on Eq. (6) and the rasterizer's gradients for optimization; no formal proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AlphaTablets: A Generic Plane Representation for 3D Planar Reconstruction from Monocular Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYLIPH2Z

@misc{pith2026241119950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AlphaTablets: A Generic Plane Representation for 3D Planar Reconstruction from Monocular Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYLIPH2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19950}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce AlphaTablets, a novel and generic representation of 3D planes that features continuous 3D surface and precise boundary delineation. By representing 3D planes as rectangles with alpha channels, AlphaTablets combine the advantages of current 2D and 3D plane representations, enabling accurate, consistent and flexible modeling of 3D planes. We derive differentiable rasterization on top of AlphaTablets to efficiently render 3D planes into images, and propose a novel bottom-up pipeline for 3D planar reconstruction from monocular videos. Starting with 2D superpixels and geometric cues from pre-trained models, we initialize 3D planes as AlphaTablets and optimize them via differentiable rendering. An effective merging scheme is introduced to facilitate the growth and refinement of AlphaTablets. Through iterative optimization and merging, we reconstruct complete and accurate 3D planes with solid surfaces and clear boundaries. Extensive experiments on the ScanNet dataset demonstrate state-of-the-art performance in 3D planar reconstruction, underscoring the great potential of AlphaTablets as a generic 3D plane representation for various applications. Project page is available at: https://hyzcluster.github.io/alphatablets

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of tablet properties and rendering. Normal and up vector determines the rotation of a tablet in 3D space, while every tablet maintains a distance ratio between the coordinates of the 3D field and 2D-pixel space. works [2, 22, 28, 48] adopt sparse view images as inputs, and explore joint plane detection, association and optimization to help the final reconstruction. However, these methods can only recove… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of our proposed 3D planar reconstruction. Given a monocular video as input, we first initialize AlphaTablets using off-the-shelf superpixel, depth, and normal estimation models. The 3D AlphaTablets are then optimized through photometric guidance, followed by the merging scheme. This iterative process of optimization and merging refines the 3D AlphaTablets, resulting in accurate and complete 3D planar recons… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results on ScanNet. Error maps are included. Better viewed when zoomed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results on TUM-RGBD and Replica datasets. Baselines. We compare our method with different types of representative works. PlanarRecon [50] is the state-of-the-art method of learning-based 3D planar reconstruction from monocular video. Following it, we compar…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D scene editing examples of our method. in textureless regions where photometric loss constraints are insufficient. Merging scheme is crucial for producing appropriate 3D planes. Without merging, the 3D AlphaTablets remain small plane fragments, and thus can not recon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative Comparison of Initialization Methods for SuGaR. Breakdown of Time Budget. Below is a breakdown of the time budget for the optimization process of a single scene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of Insufficient Coverage of 3D Ground-Truth Labels: The 3D ground truth labels only partially cover the range within the camera’s view. Most of the red regions in the figure highlight this issue. While these uncovered areas reduce accuracy, they should no…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of Tablet Count Evolution. excluding areas too distant to be relevant using the camera frustum, significant portions remain uncovered. PlanarRecon learns to exclude distant reconstructions during its training stage, leading to improved accuracy metrics. O…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of our tablet anti-aliasing scheme. Naive anti-aliasing will lead to wrong strip artifacts, while our anti-aliasing scheme effectively mitigates those artifacts. understanding. However, it may raise concerns about privacy and data security, neces…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More qualitative results on ScanNet. Error maps are included. Better viewed when zoomed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More qualitative results on TUM-RGBD and Replica datasets. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Slic superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods

    Radhakrishna Achanta, Appu Shaji, Kevin Smith, Aurelien Lucchi, Pascal Fua, and Sabine Süsstrunk. Slic superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 34(11):2274–2282, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Planeformers: From sparse view planes to 3d reconstruction

    Samir Agarwala, Linyi Jin, Chris Rockwell, and David F Fouhey. Planeformers: From sparse view planes to 3d reconstruction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 192–209. Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Dense multi-planar scene estimation from a sparse set of images

    Alberto Argiles, Javier Civera, and Luis Montesano. Dense multi-planar scene estimation from a sparse set of images. In 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 4448–4454. IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Automatic reconstruction of piecewise planar models from multiple views

    Caroline Baillard and Andrew Zisserman. Automatic reconstruction of piecewise planar models from multiple views. In Proceedings. 1999 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Cat. No PR00149) , volume 2, pages 559–565. IEEE, 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5470–5479, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    A random sampling strategy for piecewise planar scene segmentation

    Adrien Bartoli. A random sampling strategy for piecewise planar scene segmentation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 105(1):42–59, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    The 3d hough transform for plane detection in point clouds: A review and a new accumulator design

    Dorit Borrmann, Jan Elseberg, Kai Lingemann, and Andreas Nüchter. The 3d hough transform for plane detection in point clouds: A review and a new accumulator design. 3D Research, 2(2):1–13, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    PlanarNeRF: Online Learning of Planar Primitives with Neural Radiance Fields

    Zheng Chen, Qingan Yan, Huangying Zhan, Changjiang Cai, Xiangyu Xu, Yuzhong Huang, Weihan Wang, Ziyue Feng, Lantao Liu, and Yi Xu. Planarnerf: Online learning of planar primitives with neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00871, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Dpptam: Dense piecewise planar tracking and mapping from a monocular sequence

    Alejo Concha and Javier Civera. Dpptam: Dense piecewise planar tracking and mapping from a monocular sequence. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 5686–5693. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Manhattan and piecewise- planar constraints for dense monocular mapping

    Alejo Concha, Muhammad Wajahat Hussain, Luis Montano, and Javier Civera. Manhattan and piecewise- planar constraints for dense monocular mapping. In Robotics: Science and systems , 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes

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

    2017

  4. [12]

    Omnidata: A scalable pipeline for making multi-task mid-level vision datasets from 3d scans

    Ainaz Eftekhar, Alexander Sax, Jitendra Malik, and Amir Zamir. Omnidata: A scalable pipeline for making multi-task mid-level vision datasets from 3d scans. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10786–10796, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Fast plane extraction in organized point clouds using agglomerative hierarchical clustering

    Chen Feng, Yuichi Taguchi, and Vineet R Kamat. Fast plane extraction in organized point clouds using agglomerative hierarchical clustering. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6218–6225. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    Manhattan-world stereo

    Yasutaka Furukawa, Brian Curless, Steven M Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Manhattan-world stereo. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1422–1429. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Piecewise planar and non-planar stereo for urban scene reconstruction

    David Gallup, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys. Piecewise planar and non-planar stereo for urban scene reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1418–1425. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Surfelnerf: Neural surfel radiance fields for online photorealistic reconstruction of indoor scenes

    Yiming Gao, Yan-Pei Cao, and Ying Shan. Surfelnerf: Neural surfel radiance fields for online photorealistic reconstruction of indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 108–118, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

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

    Antoine Guédon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12775, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geometric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation

    Mu Hu, Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Zhipeng Cai, Xiaoxiao Long, Hao Chen, Kaixuan Wang, Gang Yu, Chunhua Shen, and Shaojie Shen. Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geometric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15506, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17888, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    3dlite: towards commodity 3d scanning for content creation

    Jingwei Huang, Angela Dai, Leonidas J Guibas, and Matthias Nießner. 3dlite: towards commodity 3d scanning for content creation. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(6):203–1, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Planar surface reconstruction from sparse views

    Linyi Jin, Shengyi Qian, Andrew Owens, and David F Fouhey. Planar surface reconstruction from sparse views. In Proc. of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 12991–13000, 2021. 10

    2021

  15. [23]

    What energy functions can be minimized via graph cuts? IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 26(2):147–159, 2004

    Vladimir Kolmogorov and Ramin Zabin. What energy functions can be minimized via graph cuts? IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 26(2):147–159, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering

    Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Seol, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 39(6):1– 14, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Neurmips: Neural mixture of planar experts for view synthesis

    Zhi-Hao Lin, Wei-Chiu Ma, Hao-Yu Hsu, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, and Shenlong Wang. Neurmips: Neural mixture of planar experts for view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15702–15712, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Planercnn: 3d plane detection and reconstruction from a single image

    Chen Liu, Kihwan Kim, Jinwei Gu, Yasutaka Furukawa, and Jan Kautz. Planercnn: 3d plane detection and reconstruction from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4450–4459, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Planenet: Piece-wise planar reconstruction from a single rgb image

    Chen Liu, Jimei Yang, Duygu Ceylan, Ersin Yumer, and Yasutaka Furukawa. Planenet: Piece-wise planar reconstruction from a single rgb image. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2579–2588, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Planemvs: 3d plane reconstruction from multi-view stereo

    Jiachen Liu, Pan Ji, Nitin Bansal, Changjiang Cai, Qingan Yan, Xiaolei Huang, and Yi Xu. Planemvs: 3d plane reconstruction from multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8665–8675, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Multi-view depth estimation using epipolar spatio-temporal networks

    Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Wei Li, Christian Theobalt, and Wenping Wang. Multi-view depth estimation using epipolar spatio-temporal networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8258–8267, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Highly parallelizable plane extraction for organized point clouds using spherical convex hulls

    Hannes Möls, Kailai Li, and Uwe D Hanebeck. Highly parallelizable plane extraction for organized point clouds using spherical convex hulls. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7920–7926. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Atlas: End-to-end 3d scene reconstruction from posed images

    Zak Murez, Tarrence Van As, James Bartolozzi, Ayan Sinha, Vijay Badrinarayanan, and Andrew Rabi- novich. Atlas: End-to-end 3d scene reconstruction from posed images. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VII ...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Learning pairwise inter-plane relations for piecewise planar reconstruction

    Yiming Qian and Yasutaka Furukawa. Learning pairwise inter-plane relations for piecewise planar reconstruction. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VII 16, pages 330–345. Springer, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Plane-based odometry using an rgb-d camera

    Carolina Raposo, Miguel Lourenço, Michel Antunes, and Joao Pedro Barreto. Plane-based odometry using an rgb-d camera. In BMVC, volume 2, page 6, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Dense planar slam

    Renato F Salas-Moreno, Ben Glocken, Paul HJ Kelly, and Andrew J Davison. Dense planar slam. In 2014 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR) , pages 157–164. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Efficient ransac for point-cloud shape detection

    Ruwen Schnabel, Roland Wahl, and Reinhard Klein. Efficient ransac for point-cloud shape detection. In Computer graphics forum, volume 26, pages 214–226. Wiley Online Library, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    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 recognition , pages 4104–4113, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Deep marching tetrahedra: a hybrid representation for high-resolution 3d shape synthesis

    Tianchang Shen, Jun Gao, Kangxue Yin, Ming-Yu Liu, and Sanja Fidler. Deep marching tetrahedra: a hybrid representation for high-resolution 3d shape synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:6087–6101, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Planerectr: Unified query learning for 3d plane recovery from a single view

    Jingjia Shi, Shuaifeng Zhi, and Kai Xu. Planerectr: Unified query learning for 3d plane recovery from a single view. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9377–9386, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images

    Nathan Silberman, Derek Hoiem, Pushmeet Kohli, and Rob Fergus. Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2012: 12th European Conference on Computer Vision, Florence, Italy, October 7-13, 2012, Proceedings, Part V 12 , pages 746–760. Sp...

    2012

  34. [42]

    Piecewise planar stereo for image-based rendering

    Sudipta Sinha, Drew Steedly, and Rick Szeliski. Piecewise planar stereo for image-based rendering. In 2009 International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1881–1888, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    From planes to corners: Multi-purpose primitive detection in unorganized 3d point clouds

    Christiane Sommer, Yumin Sun, Leonidas Guibas, Daniel Cremers, and Tolga Birdal. From planes to corners: Multi-purpose primitive detection in unorganized 3d point clouds. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):1764–1771, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces

    Julian Straub, Thomas Whelan, Lingni Ma, Yufan Chen, Erik Wijmans, Simon Green, Jakob J Engel, Raul Mur-Artal, Carl Ren, Shobhit Verma, et al. The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sturm, N

    J. Sturm, N. Engelhard, F. Endres, W. Burgard, and D. Cremers. A benchmark for the evaluation of rgb-d slam systems. In Proc. of the International Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS) , Oct. 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Neuralrecon: Real-time coherent 3d reconstruction from monocular video

    Jiaming Sun, Yiming Xie, Linghao Chen, Xiaowei Zhou, and Hujun Bao. Neuralrecon: Real-time coherent 3d reconstruction from monocular video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 15598–15607, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Planetr: Structure-guided transformers for 3d plane recovery

    Bin Tan, Nan Xue, Song Bai, Tianfu Wu, and Gui-Song Xia. Planetr: Structure-guided transformers for 3d plane recovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 11 4186–4195, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Nope-sac: Neural one-plane ransac for sparse-view planar 3d reconstruction

    Bin Tan, Nan Xue, Tianfu Wu, and Gui-Song Xia. Nope-sac: Neural one-plane ransac for sparse-view planar 3d reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

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

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Planarrecon: Real-time 3d plane detection and reconstruction from posed monocular videos

    Yiming Xie, Matheus Gadelha, Fengting Yang, Xiaowei Zhou, and Huaizu Jiang. Planarrecon: Real-time 3d plane detection and reconstruction from posed monocular videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6219–6228, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Point-nerf: Point-based neural radiance fields

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

    2022

  44. [52]

    Recovering 3d planes from a single image via convolutional neural networks

    Fengting Yang and Zihan Zhou. Recovering 3d planes from a single image via convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 85–100, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Monocular object and plane slam in structured environments

    Shichao Yang and Sebastian Scherer. Monocular object and plane slam in structured environments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(4):3145–3152, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Single-image piece-wise planar 3d reconstruction via associative embedding

    Zehao Yu, Jia Zheng, Dongze Lian, Zihan Zhou, and Shenghua Gao. Single-image piece-wise planar 3d reconstruction via associative embedding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1029–1037, 2019. 12 A Appendix A.1 More Detai...

    2019

Pith tools

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