Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

PlanarSplatting: Accurate Planar Surface Reconstruction in 3 Minutes

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Indoor scenes reconstruct as accurate 3D planes in about 3 minutes, with no plane-labeled training data

desk verdict A practical plane-splatting method that delivers on speed, but the monocular-prior supervision leaves a data-overlap confound unexamined. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03451 v1 pith:CNPYJXII submitted 2024-12-04 cs.CV

Bin Tan , Rui Yu , Yujun Shen , Nan Xue This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords planarreconstruction3DplaneprimitivesdifferentiablesplattingGaussianindoorscenesmulti-viewnovelviewsynthesismonocularpriors
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

PlanarSplatting tries to establish that a full indoor scene can be reconstructed as a compact set of 3D planes by optimizing rectangular plane primitives directly in 3D space, instead of detecting, matching, and tracking planes in images. Rendering these primitives into depth and normal maps, the method supervises itself with monocular depth and normal predictions, so it needs no plane-labeled training data. The paper reports that the optimization converges in about 3 minutes per scene on ScanNet and ScanNet++, with lower Chamfer distance and higher F-score than prior plane-reconstruction methods, including ones trained with plane annotations. The same plane primitives also initialize Gaussian-splatting renderers, improving novel-view synthesis while using fewer points and less training time. If the claim holds, structured indoor geometry becomes cheap enough to generate at scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rectangular 3D plane primitive, parameterized by a center $p_\pi$, a rotation quaternion $q_\pi$, and double-direction radii along its local X and Y axes; the double radii give the patch independent extent on either side of its center. The argument is carried by the differentiable plane splatting function: for a ray-plane intersection, the splatting weight is the minimum of a sigmoid-shaped weight along the X-axis and one along the Y-axis, with a sharpness hyperparameter $\lambda$ that grows during optimization, so the primitive approximates a true rectangle rather than a soft Gaussian ellipse. These weights are used to composite depth and normal maps over the 30 nearest intersections per ray, and the render loss against monocular depth and normal priors drives all optimization. Plane splitting by radius gradients during optimization, a final merge by normal angle and offset thresholds, and the CUDA forward/backward implementation complete the mechanism that produces accurate plane instances within 3 minutes.

What would settle it

Reconstruct a held-out set of indoor scenes whose ground-truth geometry comes from a laser scan and that were not used to train the monocular depth and normal priors, then compare plane Chamfer distance and F-score with the baselines reported in Tables 1 and 2. If the margins disappear or reverse, the benchmark numbers are inflated by prior-model exposure rather than by the plane optimization itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that planar surface reconstruction can be formulated as direct optimization of explicit 3D plane primitives $\pi = (p_\pi, q_\pi, r_x^+, r_x^-, r_y^+, r_y^-)$, rectangular patches with a center, a quaternion rotation, and four directional radii. Each primitive is rendered into a ray's depth and normal through a rectangular splatting weight — the minimum of two sigmoid-shaped weights along the patch's local axes — and the nearest intersections are $\alpha$-composited front to back. The only supervision comes from comparing these rendered maps with monocular depth and normal predictions, and a radius-gradient-based splitting operation lets oversized primitives adapt to multiple coplanar regions. The paper argues that this removes the need for 2D/3D plane detection and cross-view plane matching, and reports the best geometry metrics among compared methods on both datasets while reconstructing a scene in about 3 minutes thanks to a CUDA implementation.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction is only as accurate as the monocular depth and normal priors that initialize the planes and provide the only supervision; if those priors are systematically wrong for a scene, the optimized plane primitives converge to the wrong surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plane detection, matching, and tracking stages are not needed: multi-view plane consistency is enforced by optimizing 3D primitives directly against rendered depth and normal maps.
  • On the paper's results, the method achieves lower Chamfer distance and higher F-score than PlanarRecon and AirPlanes on ScanNetV2 and ScanNet++, even though those baselines use plane annotations during training.
  • Gaussian splatting renderers can be initialized from the reconstructed plane primitives, and with point positions fixed and densification removed, the paper reports better PSNR and SSIM than vanilla 3DGS and 2DGS while using fewer points and less total time.
  • Because the output is a merged collection of plane primitives, the representation is compact and structurally explicit, suitable for editing or downstream modeling.
  • The method targets planar indoor scenes; curved surfaces and strongly non-planar geometry are outside its intended scope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the only supervision is monocular depth and normal prediction, PlanarSplatting inherits any systematic bias of those priors; if the priors were trained on the benchmark datasets themselves, the reported margins over ScanNet and ScanNet++ baselines could be optimistic.
  • Beyond the paper: the pipeline's speed and lack of plane labels make it a natural pseudo-label generator for training plane detectors or building large structured indoor datasets, a use the paper gestures at in its conclusion.
  • Beyond the paper: the rectangle-shaped splatting function is a general differentiable-rendering idea; the same shape-aware window could be applied to other parametric primitives such as boxes, cylinders, or superquadrics.
  • Beyond the paper: the final plane count should be controllable through initialization density and the gradient threshold for splitting, so the representation's level of detail is a tunable knob; this is not reported in the paper.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PlanarSplatting, an optimization-based method for planar surface reconstruction from posed multi-view images. The scene is represented as a set of learnable 3D rectangular plane primitives, and a differentiable plane splatting function renders depth and normal maps from these primitives. The primitives are optimized against monocular depth and normal pseudo-labels obtained from Metric3Dv2 and Omnidata, without any 2D/3D plane annotations. A custom CUDA implementation is said to reconstruct a scene in about 3 minutes. Experiments on ScanNet and ScanNet++ report that the method outperforms prior geometry-based and plane-annotation-based baselines on Chamfer distance and F-score, and that initializing 3DGS/2DGS with the reconstructed planes improves novel view synthesis quality while reducing training time.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to indoor planar reconstruction: it removes the need for plane detection, matching, and tracking, avoids plane-annotation supervision, and achieves a remarkably fast per-scene optimization time. The rectangle-aware plane splatting function and its CUDA implementation are technically interesting. The evaluation is also larger than most prior work, covering 130 scenes across two datasets. However, the evidence as presented is incomplete: the supervision is entirely provided by external monocular priors that may have been trained on the evaluation datasets, no statistical significance or error bars are reported, and the code is not released, so the central 'accurate in 3 minutes' claim cannot currently be independently verified.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (14); Sec. 4.2, Tables 1-2] The only supervision for the plane optimization is the render loss L_render against pseudo-labels from Metric3Dv2 and Omnidata. If these foundation models were trained on ScanNet or ScanNet++, the reported improvements on those datasets may reflect the priors' familiarity with the test distribution rather than the proposed splatting optimization. The paper should report whether the training data of Metric3Dv2 and Omnidata overlap the evaluation scenes, or add a held-out evaluation on distributions not seen by the priors, and should include an ablation that replaces the specific priors with a different depth/normal source (or a photometric-only loss) to isolate the contribution of the plane splatting optimization.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Tables 1-2] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. On ScanNet, the improvement over AirPlanes is modest (Chamfer 5.30 vs 4.83; F-score 64.92 vs 68.85) and could be within scene-level variance. Please report per-scene standard deviations or perform a paired significance test across the 100 and 30 scenes to support the claim of 'significantly better geometric accuracy'.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Plane Merge] The plane merge criterion states that primitives are merged if their normal angle error is below 25 degrees and their offset distance error is below 0.1 cm. An offset threshold of 0.1 cm (1 mm) is implausibly tight for merging planes in scene-scale reconstruction and would likely prevent any meaningful merging; this appears to be a likely typo (e.g., 0.1 m). Please clarify the intended value and report sensitivity of the final metrics to this threshold.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4.4] The '3 minutes' claim appears to refer only to the 5,000-iteration plane optimization. The wall-clock time also includes Metric3Dv2 depth inference, Omnidata normal inference, and the final plane merging. Please report the full pipeline time, including pseudo-label generation and merging, and specify the GPU hardware used for each component. This is important because the stated speed advantage over baselines may be reduced when prior inference is counted.
  5. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.1] The manuscript states that the CUDA implementation will be released after publication but does not provide code or a detailed algorithmic description of the CUDA kernels. Given that the method's speed and geometry quality depend critically on the CUDA implementation of the differentiable splatting function, the results are not reproducible from the paper alone. I strongly encourage releasing the code (or a detailed pseudocode with performance benchmarks) with the paper or in the supplementary material.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract claims evaluation 'over hundreds of scenes,' but the experiments use 100 ScanNet scenes and 30 ScanNet++ scenes, totaling 130, which is more than one hundred but not 'hundreds.' Please adjust the wording.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, after Eq. (13)] There is a typo: 'deoth' should be 'depth.'
  3. [Table 4] The metric header 'LIPPS' should be 'LPIPS.'
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Plane Splitting] The splitting criterion uses 'average radii gradients' greater than 0.2, but it is not specified whether this average is taken over the pixels covered by the plane, over the plane's area, or over some other set. Please clarify the exact aggregation used.
  5. [Sec. 4.1, Datasets] For ScanNet++, the paper says 'we randomly select 30 scenes for evaluation'; please provide the random seed or the list of scene ids to make the evaluation reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the plane primitives are optimized against external monocular depth/normal pseudo-labels and evaluated on ground-truth geometry; no fitted parameter or self-citation reduces the central claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The learnable 3D plane primitives (Sec. 3.1) are initialized using Metric3Dv2 depth, then optimized by differentiable rendering of depth and normal maps (Eqs. 11-12) under the render loss of Eq. 14, which compares those rendered maps to Metric3Dv2 and Omnidata pseudo-labels. The optimization variables are the plane centers, rotations, and radii; the loss does not fit the pseudo-label models, and the final reconstruction is evaluated against ground-truth meshes and plane annotations on ScanNetV2 and ScanNet++. There is no equation in which the predicted output is defined as the fitted input, and no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction. The cited prior works by the authors (PlaneTR, NOPE-SAC) appear only as related work and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The potential concern that Metric3Dv2 or Omnidata may have been trained on ScanNet/ScanNet++ is an evaluation-contamination risk about the independence of pseudo-labels from the test distribution, not an internal circularity in the derivation. Likewise, the bounded accuracy imposed by the monocular priors is a limitation of the approach, not a self-referential reduction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on three load-bearing external inputs: the piecewise-planar scene assumption, monocular depth and normal pseudo-labels, and empirical convergence of the optimization. The many hand-chosen hyperparameters (loss weights, lambda schedule, split and merge thresholds, initialization count, training schedule) are not fitted to the evaluation set, but they influence the reported metrics and are not justified by an analysis.

free parameters (7)
  • loss weights alpha1, alpha2 = 5.0, 1.0
    Weights for the normal and depth terms in Eq. (14), chosen by hand; they control how strongly the monocular pseudo-labels drive the optimization.
  • splatting sharpness schedule lambda = 20 * exp(-(1 - 0.001*iter)), capped at 300
    Controls how close the smooth splatting weight is to a sharp rectangle in Eqs. (7)-(10); the schedule and cap are manually chosen.
  • plane splitting gradient threshold = 0.2
    Planes are split when average radius gradients exceed 0.2 (Sec. 3.3), affecting primitive count and final geometry.
  • plane merge thresholds = normal angle < 25 deg, offset < 0.1 cm
    Post-optimization merging of primitives into plane instances; directly determines segmentation metrics VOI/RI/SC and planar metrics.
  • initial plane count and M nearest intersections = 2,000 primitives; M = 30
    Number of sampled plane centers from the coarse mesh and number of ray-plane intersections blended per ray in Eqs. (11)-(13); chosen by hand.
  • optimization schedule = 5,000 iterations, Adam lr 0.001, split every 1,000 iterations
    Fixed training budget and learning rate; the 3-minute runtime depends on these choices.
  • data sampling and resolution = 480x640; every 8th frame on ScanNet, every 10th on ScanNet++
    Input image resolution and frame sampling affect both speed and coverage; chosen by the authors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Indoor scenes can be accurately represented by a set of rectangular planar primitives.
    The method fits only flat rectangles, and the limitations section admits it is not suitable for curved surfaces. The entire representation and evaluation assume piecewise-planar structure.
  • domain assumption Monocular depth and normal predictions from Metric3Dv2 and Omnidata are reliable enough to serve as pseudo-ground truth for optimization.
    Eq. (14) minimizes the difference between rendered and predicted maps; if the priors are wrong, the optimized planes inherit those errors. The paper does not validate the priors on the test scenes.
  • domain assumption Gradient descent on the differentiable rendering loss converges to a useful scene geometry.
    The paper provides no convergence guarantees; the 5,000-iteration Adam schedule is an empirical choice. Success depends on the loss landscape of the splatting function.
  • domain assumption The ScanNet and ScanNet++ ground-truth plane annotations extracted as in PlanarRecon and AirPlanes are accurate, and the metric definitions are shared.
    Evaluation follows prior protocols [17, 33, 35] without re-deriving them; this is standard practice but still an unproved background assumption.
  • standard math Ray-plane intersection and alpha-compositing rendering equations (Eq. 4 and Eqs. 11-13) are correct geometric operations.
    These are standard ray tracing and alpha blending formulas; no proof is needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PlanarSplatting: Accurate Planar Surface Reconstruction in 3 Minutes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNPYJXII

@misc{pith2026241203451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PlanarSplatting: Accurate Planar Surface Reconstruction in 3 Minutes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNPYJXII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03451}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents PlanarSplatting, an ultra-fast and accurate surface reconstruction approach for multiview indoor images. We take the 3D planes as the main objective due to their compactness and structural expressiveness in indoor scenes, and develop an explicit optimization framework that learns to fit the expected surface of indoor scenes by splatting the 3D planes into 2.5D depth and normal maps. As our PlanarSplatting operates directly on the 3D plane primitives, it eliminates the dependencies on 2D/3D plane detection and plane matching and tracking for planar surface reconstruction. Furthermore, the essential merits of plane-based representation plus CUDA-based implementation of planar splatting functions, PlanarSplatting reconstructs an indoor scene in 3 minutes while having significantly better geometric accuracy. Thanks to our ultra-fast reconstruction speed, the largest quantitative evaluation on the ScanNet and ScanNet++ datasets over hundreds of scenes clearly demonstrated the advantages of our method. We believe that our accurate and ultrafast planar surface reconstruction method will be applied in the structured data curation for surface reconstruction in the future. The code of our CUDA implementation will be publicly available. Project page: https://icetttb.github.io/PlanarSplatting/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We introduce PlanarSplatting, a fast and accurate optimization-based planar reconstruction method for indoor scenes. Top (Planar Reconstruction): We show our planar reconstruction results on the ScanNetV2 [2] dataset achieved in 3 minutes. Compared to prior art PlanarRecon [35] and AirPlanes [33], our PlanarSplatting reconstructs more complete and detailed 3D planes. Bottom (Novel View Synthesis): We show that our P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation of our 3D plane primitive with learnable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of our proposed PlanarSplatting. Given a set of posed multi-view images of indoor scenes, our method renders depth and normal maps from 3D plane primitives. Then, with the supervision of monocular cues, these 3D plane primitives are gradually optimized to recover the scene geometry and finally merged to get the planar reconstruction result. With these learnable parameters, the 3D planar primitive can be… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the proposed plane splatting function. Naive Gaussian Splatting can not effectively approximate the boundary of our rectangular plane primitive (shown in black dashed border). In contrast, our proposed plane splatting function can approximate the bounda…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstruction comparison with different splatting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on the ScanNetV2 (rows 1-4) and ScanNet++ (last row) datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Decomposing Densification in Gaussian Splatting for Faster 3D Scene Reconstruction

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A split-then-clone densification schedule with energy-guided multi-resolution training roughly halves 3D Gaussian Splatting training time while keeping reconstruction quality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Samir Agarwala, Linyi Jin, Chris Rockwell, and David F. Fouhey. Planeformers: From sparse view planes to 3d reconstruction. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 192–209,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Halber, Thomas A

    Angela Dai, Angel X. Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Halber, Thomas A. Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 2432–2443,

    work page

  3. [3]

    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 Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 10766–10776, 2021. 2, 5

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Seitz, and Richard Szeliski

    Yasutaka Furukawa, Brian Curless, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Manhattan-world stereo. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 1422–1429, 2009. 3

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Seitz, and Richard Szeliski

    Yasutaka Furukawa, Brian Curless, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Reconstructing building interiors from images. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 80–87, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    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 IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 1418–1425, 2010. 3

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Efros, and Martial Hebert

    Abhinav Gupta, Alexei A. Efros, and Martial Hebert. Blocks world revisited: Image understanding using qualitative ge- ometry and mechanics. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 482–496, 2010. 2

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Efficient 3d scene abstraction using line segments

    Manuel Hofer, Michael Maurer, and Horst Bischof. Efficient 3d scene abstraction using line segments. Comput. Vis. Image Underst., 157:167–178, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    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. CoRR, abs/2404.15506, 2024. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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 SIGGRAPH Conference Papers, page 32, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8

    2024

  3. [11]

    Linyi Jin, Shengyi Qian, Andrew Owens, and David F. Fouhey. Planar surface reconstruction from sparse views. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 12971–12980, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  4. [12]

    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– 139:14, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8

    2023

  5. [13]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. ,

  6. [14]

    Surface reconstruction from 3d line segments

    Pierre-Alain Langlois, Alexandre Boulch, and Renaud Mar- let. Surface reconstruction from 3d line segments. In Int. Conf. 3D Vis., pages 553–563, 2019. 3

    2019

  7. [15]

    Lee, Martial Hebert, and Takeo Kanade

    David C. Lee, Martial Hebert, and Takeo Kanade. Geometric reasoning for single image structure recovery. InIEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 2136–2143, 2009. 2, 3

    2009

  8. [16]

    Planenet: Piece-wise planar reconstruc- tion from a single RGB image

    Chen Liu, Jimei Yang, Duygu Ceylan, Ersin Yumer, and Yasutaka Furukawa. Planenet: Piece-wise planar reconstruc- tion from a single RGB image. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 2579–2588, 2018. 3

    2018

  9. [17]

    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 IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 4450–4459, 2019. 2, 3, 6

    2019

  10. [18]

    3d line mapping revisited

    Shaohui Liu, Yifan Yu, R ´emi Pautrat, Marc Pollefeys, and Viktor Larsson. 3d line mapping revisited. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 21445–21455. IEEE,

  11. [19]

    Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Gabriel Schwartz, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, Yaser Sheikh, and Jason M. Saragih. Mixture of volumetric primitives for efficient neural render- ing. ACM Trans. Graph., 40(4):59:1–59:13, 2021. 3

    2021

  12. [20]

    Towards detection of orthogonal planes in monocular images of indoor environments

    Branislav Micus ´ık, Horst Wildenauer, and Markus Vincze. Towards detection of orthogonal planes in monocular images of indoor environments. In Int. Conf. on Robot. and Auto. , pages 999–1004, 2008. 3

    2008

  13. [21]

    Efros, and Mathieu Aubry

    Tom Monnier, Jake Austin, Angjoo Kanazawa, Alexei A. Efros, and Mathieu Aubry. Differentiable blocks world: Qualitative 3d decomposition by rendering primitives. In Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst., 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  14. [22]

    Brostow, and Niloy J

    ´Aron Monszpart, Nicolas Mellado, Gabriel J. Brostow, and Niloy J. Mitra. Rapter: rebuilding man-made scenes with regular arrangements of planes. ACM Trans. Graph., 34(4): 103:1–103:12, 2015. 3

    2015

  15. [23]

    Fast plane detection and polygonalization in noisy 3d range images

    Jann Poppinga, Narunas Vaskevicius, Andreas Birk, and Kaustubh Pathak. Fast plane detection and polygonalization in noisy 3d range images. In Int. Conf. Intell. Robots and Syst., pages 3378–3383, 2008. 2, 3

    2008

  16. [24]

    Yiming Qian, Srikumar Ramalingam, and James H. Elder. LS3D: single-view gestalt 3d surface reconstruction from manhattan line segments. In Asian Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 399–416, 2018. 3

    2018

  17. [25]

    Simplere- con: 3d reconstruction without 3d convolutions

    Mohamed Sayed, John Gibson, Jamie Watson, Victor Prisacariu, Michael Firman, and Cl´ement Godard. Simplere- con: 3d reconstruction without 3d convolutions. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 1–19, 2022. 6

    2022

  18. [26]

    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 Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 9343–9352, 2023. 3

    2023

  19. [27]

    Sinha, Drew Steedly, and Richard Szeliski

    Sudipta N. Sinha, Drew Steedly, and Richard Szeliski. Piecewise planar stereo for image-based rendering. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2009. 3

    2009

  20. [28]

    Guibas, Daniel Cremers, and Tolga Birdal

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

    2020

  21. [29]

    Oriented point sampling for plane detection in unorganized point clouds

    Bo Sun and Philippos Mordohai. Oriented point sampling for plane detection in unorganized point clouds. In Int. Conf. on Robot. and Auto., pages 2917–2923, 2019. 3

    2019

  22. [30]

    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 Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 4166–4175, 2021. 3 9

    2021

  23. [31]

    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 Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 45 (12):15233–15248, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  24. [32]

    Differentiable surface splatting for point-based geometry processing

    Yifan Wang, Felice Serena, Shihao Wu, Cengiz ¨Oztireli, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. Differentiable surface splatting for point-based geometry processing. ACM Trans. Graph., 38 (6):230:1–230:14, 2019. 3

    2019

  25. [33]

    Brostow, Michael Firman, and Sara Vicente

    Jamie Watson, Filippo Aleotti, Mohamed Sayed, Zawar Qureshi, Oisin Mac Aodha, Gabriel J. Brostow, Michael Firman, and Sara Vicente. Airplanes: Accurate plane estimation via 3d-consistent embeddings. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 5270–5280, 2024. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2024

  26. [34]

    Reconstructing the world’s museums

    Jianxiong Xiao and Yasutaka Furukawa. Reconstructing the world’s museums. Int. J. Comput. Vis. , 110(3):243–258,

  27. [35]

    Planarrecon: Realtime 3d plane detection and reconstruction from posed monocular videos

    Yiming Xie, Matheus Gadelha, Fengting Yang, Xiaowei Zhou, and Huaizu Jiang. Planarrecon: Realtime 3d plane detection and reconstruction from posed monocular videos. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 6209– 6218, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

    2022

  28. [36]

    Plane segmentation based on the optimal-vector-field in lidar point clouds

    Sheng Xu, Ruisheng Wang, Hao Wang, and Ruigang Yang. Plane segmentation based on the optimal-vector-field in lidar point clouds. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 43 (11):3991–4007, 2021. 2

    2021

  29. [37]

    NEAT: distilling 3d wireframes from neural attraction fields

    Nan Xue, Bin Tan, Yuxi Xiao, Liang Dong, Gui-Song Xia, Tianfu Wu, and Yujun Shen. NEAT: distilling 3d wireframes from neural attraction fields. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 19968–19977. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  30. [38]

    Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes

    Chandan Yeshwanth, Yueh-Cheng Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 12–22, 2023. 2, 6, 1, 4

    2023

  31. [39]

    Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from A single image

    Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Hao Chen, Zhipeng Cai, Gang Yu, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Chunhua Shen. Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from A single image. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2023. 2

    2023

  32. [40]

    Single-image piece-wise planar 3d recon- struction via associative embedding

    Zehao Yu, Jia Zheng, Dongze Lian, Zihan Zhou, and Shenghua Gao. Single-image piece-wise planar 3d recon- struction via associative embedding. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 1029–1037, 2019. 2, 3

    2019

  33. [41]

    Planeac: Line-guided planar 3d reconstruction based on self-attention and convolution hybrid model

    Jiahui Zhang, Jinfu Yang, Fuji Fu, and Jiaqi Ma. Planeac: Line-guided planar 3d reconstruction based on self-attention and convolution hybrid model. Pattern Recog., 153:110519,

  34. [42]

    (a) Split Plane along X-axis (vx). 𝐯!𝐯

    Yanshu Zhang, Shichong Peng, Alireza Moazeni, and Ke Li. Papr: Proximity attention point rendering. In Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst., 2023. 3 10 PlanarSplatting: Accurate Planar Surface Reconstruction in 3 Minutes Supplementary Material Appendix A. More Details of PlanarS...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.