Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Doppelgangers++: Improved Visual Disambiguation with Geometric 3D Features

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Using MASt3R's geometric decoder features with transformer voting heads and a new geo-tagged everyday-scene dataset, Doppelgangers++ sharpens doppelganger detection and improves 3D reconstruction accuracy across diverse scenes.

desk verdict Solid extension with real gains in pairwise disambiguation and SfM, but the shared GPS/IMU provenance of training labels and evaluation metric needs a human-verified check before the central claim is fully secured. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05826 v2 pith:6OTVCPVF submitted 2024-12-08 cs.CV

Yuanbo Xiangli , Ruojin Cai , Hanyu Chen , Jeffrey Byrne , Noah Snavely This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords visualdisambiguationdoppelgangersstructure-from-motion3Dreconstructiongeometricfeaturestransformerclassifiergeo-taggeddatasetmatchgraphpruning
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

The paper tries to make automatic visual disambiguation reliable enough for practical 3D reconstruction. It claims that a doppelganger classifier built on the multi-level geometric features of a pretrained stereo-reconstruction model, MASt3R, plus a newly mined geo-tagged dataset of everyday street scenes, separates true image matches from visually identical but physically different surfaces better than the previous CNN-based method. It also claims that pruning the match graph with this classifier improves reconstruction accuracy in both classic and learned SfM pipelines while needing a single, fixed decision threshold. Finally, it proposes an automatic evaluation that aligns registered camera poses to geotags and uses the RANSAC inlier ratio as a quantitative measure of model correctness, replacing manual inspection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MASt3R multi-level decoder feature stack, repurposed without fine-tuning. For a pair $(I_p,I_q)$, MASt3R has two decoder branches that exchange tokens block by block; the paper concatenates the encoder features with the outputs of all but the final decoder block into two feature sets, one per branch. Two independent transformer classification heads, each with self-attention and max-pooling, read these features and produce predictions for both input orders, yielding four scores that a test-time voting rule combines into a final confidence. The voting rule sharpens the score distribution, pushing negatives down and positives up, which is what makes fixed-threshold pruning safe. The second supporting mechanism is the VisymScenes mining procedure, which uses GPS/IMU metadata, camera intrinsics, and hand-set view-angle and frustum-overlap rules to label confident negative and positive pairs from everyday scenes.

What would settle it

Manually label a held-out set of VisymScenes pairs, compute the classifier's precision and recall against those manual labels instead of the metadata rules, and compare with the paper's reported numbers; if the gap is large, the labeling rules are the weak link. A second check is to add realistic GPS/IMU noise to the mined pairs and retrain; if performance drops substantially, the method depends critically on metadata quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the internal features of a matching model that itself conflates doppelgangers still encode enough information to recognize them. Taking two images in both orders, the paper extracts features from every decoder block of MASt3R's two intertwined branches, concatenates them with the encoder features, and feeds them to two separate transformer heads; the four resulting scores are combined by a voting rule that takes the maximum when most heads call the pair a true match, the minimum when most call it a doppelganger, and the average on a tie. Trained on the original doppelganger dataset augmented with 47,000 pairs mined from a new geo-tagged everyday-scene dataset, the classifier reaches high precision and recall on in-domain tests and large gains on an out-of-domain street-level test, and its match-graph pruning produces more complete and better-aligned reconstructions than the prior method across diverse scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The automatic labeling of VisymScenes assumes that GPS/IMU metadata and the hand-set angular and frustum thresholds correctly identify which image pairs truly depict the same surface; if that metadata or those thresholds are wrong, the classifier learns from systematically noisy labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single fixed pruning threshold can replace scene-specific tuning, because the voting rule compresses negative scores and separates the classes more cleanly.
  • Because the classifier uses MASt3R features to prune edges, it also cleans match graphs built by learned dense matching, not only those from classic feature-based matching.
  • The geotag-alignment inlier ratio gives an automatic, quantitative way to compare SfM outputs on the same scene, so doppelganger correction can be benchmarked at larger scale than manual inspection allows.
  • Adding diverse geo-tagged everyday-scene pairs to training improves out-of-domain generalization, so further data collection along the same lines should keep raising classifier reliability.
  • Keeping MASt3R frozen and training only small heads makes the method lightweight and avoids the overfitting that full fine-tuning exhibits in the ablations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's ceiling is set by the metadata-derived labels: if GPS/IMU noise or capture-site-specific geometry makes the hand-set rules mislabel pairs, the classifier will inherit those errors; a manual-label audit on a few sites would reveal the size of this effect.
  • The same recipe, frozen matching-model features plus small voting heads, could transfer to other confusion-prone tasks such as loop-closure detection in SLAM or place recognition, where the underlying matching model is known to conflate repeated structures.
  • The automatic geotag inlier-ratio check could be used at scale to flag collapsed or flipped reconstructions in large Internet photo collections, turning a qualitative failure mode into a searchable quantitative signal.
  • Training data mined through classic feature matching may leave a distribution gap relative to the learned matcher's own spurious matches; mining labels from MASt3R's match graph could close that gap and is a direct extension.
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. This paper addresses visual disambiguation in 3D reconstruction, where visually similar but distinct surfaces (doppelgangers) cause spurious image matches. The authors propose Doppelgangers++, a classifier that takes multi-level decoder features from a frozen MASt3R model, processes them with two transformer heads and a test-time voting rule, and outputs a doppelganger probability for an image pair. They introduce VisymScenes, a new dataset of daily scenes with GPS/IMU metadata, and a set of hand-designed rules to mine positive and negative pairs. The classifier is integrated into COLMAP and MASt3R-SfM pipelines as an edge-pruning filter. For SfM evaluation, the paper proposes a geotag-based metric that registers geo-tagged images to the model and computes a RANSAC inlier ratio between camera positions and geolocations. Experiments on pairwise classification (DG, VisymScenes, Mapillary test sets) show consistent improvements in AP and ROC AUC over the prior Doppelganger method, and SfM experiments on 21 scenes show higher or comparable inlier ratios and more registered images.

Significance. The pairwise classification results are strong and consistent across three test sets, including an out-of-domain Mapillary set; using MASt3R's internal 3D-aware features with a lightweight trained head is sensible and efficient. The VisymScenes dataset is a useful resource if released. However, the paper's second contribution, the geotag-based SfM validation metric, is not independently validated, and the training/mining rules rely on metadata assumptions. These gaps affect the confidence in the SfM-specific claims, though they do not undermine the pairwise classification contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (4)] The proposed geotag-based inlier ratio is used as the primary quantitative evidence for improved SfM accuracy in Table 2, but the paper does not validate that this metric agrees with manual inspection of model correctness. Because Eq. (4) pools inliers across all components and normalizes by total registered images, a reconstruction fragmented into many small components can still receive a high score; the paper reports split counts for DG-OG and Ours but not for the COLMAP baseline, and it does not report per-component inlier ratios. To make the central SfM claim load-bearing, the authors should validate the metric on a subset of scenes against human judgments (e.g., the qualitative categories used in prior work), report component-level statistics, and demonstrate that over-splitting does not inflate the metric.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The VisymScenes mining rules (view angle >160 degrees, frustum overlap checks, etc.) are used to generate both training labels and two of the three pairwise test sets. The paper acknowledges that GPS/IMU metadata can be noisy but provides no quantitative label-noise estimate, no human-verified subset, and no sensitivity analysis of the thresholds. If the rules are mis-calibrated for a site, the reported test-set gains could partly reflect the classifier learning the heuristics rather than genuine visual disambiguation. Please add a human-verified evaluation of a random sample of mined labels, or at minimum a perturbation analysis of the mining thresholds on the VisymScenes and Mapillary test sets.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Table 2] The paper claims that Doppelgangers++ "operates without threshold tuning" and uses tau=0.8 across all scenes, but no experiment shows robustness to tau. In contrast, the authors report DG-OG's sensitivity to scene-specific thresholds. Without a threshold sweep for the proposed method (e.g., inlier ratio and registered-image count versus tau on a few representative scenes), the claim that the method is less sensitive to tau is not supported by the presented evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase "an pernicious problem" should be "a pernicious problem" in both the abstract and the introduction.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The description of the test scenes is slightly ambiguous because the text says "16 scenes sampled from ... and 5 VisymScenes test scenes" while Table 2 lists 16 landmark scenes and 5 Visym sites; please clarify the exact composition and whether the 16 include or exclude the 5 Visym sites.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The voting rule in Eq. (3) is a design choice but is not ablated; please report an ablation comparing the max/min/mean voting scheme to simple averaging of the four scores to justify the mechanism.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The text says "a benchmarking method for qualitatively evaluating reconstructed models" but the metric is quantitative; change "qualitatively" to "quantitatively".
  5. [Table 2] For the COLMAP baseline, the paper does not state whether the reported numbers refer to the largest component or to all components; please specify this to allow fair comparison with the split numbers reported for DG-OG and Ours.
  6. [Overall] The paper does not state whether the VisymScenes dataset and code will be released; adding a data-availability statement would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the classifier, dataset, and geotag-based SfM metric are empirically independent; no prediction reduces to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's contributions are an empirical classifier, a new training dataset, and a geotag-based SfM evaluation metric. The VisymScenes labels (Sec. 3.1) are produced by GPS/IMU heuristics, but the classifier is trained and tested on images only, with no metadata at inference; test pairs are held-out sites and the Mapillary set is out-of-domain, so test performance is not forced by construction. The SfM metric (Sec. 3.3) uses RANSAC alignment of registered cameras to Mapillary/Visym geolocations; this metric is computed after reconstruction and does not consume the classifier's scores or the training labels, and improvements over DG-OG and COLMAP are empirical. MASt3R is a frozen, externally trained backbone, and only the two classification heads are trained with cross-entropy, with no parameter fitted to the evaluation metric. Self-citations to [2] and [3] provide the data-collection platform and the baseline/dataset, but the central claims—higher pairwise precision/recall and better SfM reconstructions—are supported by independent comparisons and ablations. The overlap between GPS/IMU-derived training labels and geotag-based evaluation is a potential construct-validity concern, not a circular dependency, because the evaluation could in principle disagree with the classifier and does disagree for the baselines.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quality of automatically mined labels (from GPS/IMU and hand-set thresholds), the transferability of MASt3R features, and the validity of the geotag-based validation metric. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond the VisymScenes dataset and the trained classifier.

free parameters (2)
  • SfM pruning threshold tau = 0.8 (fixed across all scenes)
    Used in all SfM experiments; the paper does not explain how this value was selected or whether results are sensitive to it, so it functions as a hand-set parameter in the reported system.
  • VisymScenes mining thresholds = e.g., view angle >160 degrees, diagonal FOV, frustum overlap rules
    These hand-set thresholds define the training labels for VisymScenes; changing them would change the classifier's supervision and potentially all downstream results.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GPS/IMU metadata is sufficiently accurate to serve as ground truth for whether two images capture the same 3D surface.
    Sec. 3.1 uses sensor metadata to label positive/negative pairs; if the metadata is systematically wrong, labels are noisy.
  • domain assumption MASt3R's internal decoder features, although trained for matching and dense reconstruction, contain enough signal to classify doppelgangers with only a light head.
    Sec. 3.2 and 4.5 argue this empirically; it is the core modeling bet.
  • domain assumption RANSAC inlier ratio between registered cameras and geotags is a valid proxy for reconstruction correctness.
    Sec. 3.3 uses this as the SfM evaluation metric; a high inlier ratio is interpreted as correct geometry, but outlier geotags or degenerate alignments could inflate it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Doppelgangers++: Improved Visual Disambiguation with Geometric 3D Features." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OTVCPVF

@misc{pith2026241205826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Doppelgangers++: Improved Visual Disambiguation with Geometric 3D Features},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OTVCPVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05826}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate 3D reconstruction is frequently hindered by visual aliasing, where visually similar but distinct surfaces (aka, doppelgangers), are incorrectly matched. These spurious matches distort the structure-from-motion (SfM) process, leading to misplaced model elements and reduced accuracy. Prior efforts addressed this with CNN classifiers trained on curated datasets, but these approaches struggle to generalize across diverse real-world scenes and can require extensive parameter tuning. In this work, we present Doppelgangers++, a method to enhance doppelganger detection and improve 3D reconstruction accuracy. Our contributions include a diversified training dataset that incorporates geo-tagged images from everyday scenes to expand robustness beyond landmark-based datasets. We further propose a Transformer-based classifier that leverages 3D-aware features from the MASt3R model, achieving superior precision and recall across both in-domain and out-of-domain tests. Doppelgangers++ integrates seamlessly into standard SfM and MASt3R-SfM pipelines, offering efficiency and adaptability across varied scenes. To evaluate SfM accuracy, we introduce an automated, geotag-based method for validating reconstructed models, eliminating the need for manual inspection. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that Doppelgangers++ significantly enhances pairwise visual disambiguation and improves 3D reconstruction quality in complex and diverse scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual aliasing, or doppelgangers, poses severe challenges to 3D reconstruction. We propose Doppelganger++, an enhanced pairwise image classifier that excels in visual disambiguation across diverse and challenging scenes. (Top) We seamlessly integrate Doppelganger++ into SfM, successfully disambiguating each scene. (Middle) Compared to prior work (which we refer to as DG-OG [3]), Doppelgangers++ is more robust for e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. VisymScenes examples. This new dataset includes residential areas, landmarks, historical sites, business districts, and more. Here, we present four example sites. The top row shows subsets of images captured within each site. The bottom row displays pairs of visually similar but geographically distinct images from each site along with their recorded geolocations on a map. These examples demonstrate that doppelganger… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model design. (Left) Given an image pair, we first create a symmetrized version of the pair and feed it into the frozen MASt3R model. Multi-layer features are extracted from each decoder branch, concatenated, and fed into two learnable doppelganger classification heads. Each head generates predictions (predv pq, predv qp), v ∈ {1, 2} (where pq and qp denote the symmetrized image pair), supervised by cross-entropy lo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation of doppelganger correction in SfM. (Top) We first collect sequences of geo-tagged Mapillary images around the target location and register them to the SfM model. Then, we use RANSAC to align the registered cameras and their geolocations. The inlier ratio is …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SfM Disambiguation on MegaScenes [26]. (White background) SfM results from DG-OG [3] and ours. (Black background) Verification using geo-tagged images, red points represent registered cameras and green points represent geolocations, inlier ratio (IR) is labeled on the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SfM disambiguation on VisymScenes. We show that our classifier is more robust than DG-OG [3] on test scenes from new domains, like everyday street scenes. DG-OG has difficulty disambiguating such scenes, leading to incorrect geometry. Test Data Method Metrics (trained …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MASt3R-SfM w/ Doppelgangers++. MASt3R-SfM also suffers from doppelganger issues. Our classifier effectively prunes false positive pairs and correctly reconstructs challenging scenes. # SfM-registered Images Inlier Ratio (Sec. 3.3) Test Scenes COLMAP DG-OG Ours COLMAP D…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scene coordinate reconstruction: Pos- ing of image collections via incremental learning of a relo- calizer

    Eric Brachmann, Jamie Wynn, Shuai Chen, Tommaso Cav- allari, ´Aron Monszpart, Daniyar Turmukhambetov, and Vic- tor Adrian Prisacariu. Scene coordinate reconstruction: Pos- ing of image collections via incremental learning of a relo- calizer. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 421–440. Springer,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Byrne, G

    J. Byrne, G. Castanon, Z. Li, and G. Ettinger. Fine-grained ac- tivities of people worldwide. InIEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2023. 2, 3

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Doppelgangers: Learning to disambiguate images of similar structures

    Ruojin Cai, Joseph Tung, Qianqian Wang, Hadar Averbuch- Elor, Bharath Hariharan, and Noah Snavely. Doppelgangers: Learning to disambiguate images of similar structures. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 34–44, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Coupled structure-from-motion and 3d symmetry de- tection for urban facades

    Duygu Ceylan, Niloy Jyoti Mitra, Youyi Zheng, and Mark Pauly. Coupled structure-from-motion and 3d symmetry de- tection for urban facades. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 33:1 – 15, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Global structure-from-motion by similarity averaging

    Zhaopeng Cui and Ping Tan. Global structure-from-motion by similarity averaging. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 864–872, 2015. 6

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description

    Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabi- novich. Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. In Proc. CVPR Workshops, pages 224–236,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Mast3r-sfm: a fully-integrated solution for unconstrained structure-from-motion

    Bardienus Pieter Duisterhof, Lojze ˇZust, Philippe Weinza- epfel, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J ´erˆome Revaud. Mast3r-sfm: a fully-integrated solution for unconstrained structure-from-motion. ArXiv, abs/2409.19152, 2024. 2, 3, 6

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    D2-net: A trainable cnn for joint description and detection of local features

    Mihai Dusmanu, Ignacio Rocco, Tom´as Pajdla, Marc Polle- feys, Josef Sivic, Akihiko Torii, and Torsten Sattler. D2-net: A trainable cnn for joint description and detection of local features. 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8084–8093, 2019. 6

    work page 2019

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Fischler and Robert C

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

    1981

  2. [10]

    A cluster-based disambiguation method using pose consistency verification for structure from motion

    Ye Gong, Pengwei Zhou, Changfeng Liu, Yan Yu, Jian Yao, Wei Yuan, and Li Li. A cluster-based disambiguation method using pose consistency verification for structure from motion. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2024. 2

    2024

  3. [11]

    Recov- ering correct reconstructions from indistinguishable geometry

    Jared Heinly, Enrique Dunn, and Jan-Michael Frahm. Recov- ering correct reconstructions from indistinguishable geometry. 2014 2nd International Conference on 3D Vision, 1:377–384,

    2014

  4. [12]

    Correct- ing for duplicate scene structure in sparse 3d reconstruction

    Jared Heinly, Enrique Dunn, and Jan-Michael Frahm. Correct- ing for duplicate scene structure in sparse 3d reconstruction. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 780–795. Springer, 2014. 6, 8

    2014

  5. [13]

    Seeing double without confusion: Structure-from-motion in highly ambiguous scenes

    Nianjuan Jiang, Ping Tan, and Loong-Fah Cheong. Seeing double without confusion: Structure-from-motion in highly ambiguous scenes. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 1458–1465, 2012. 2

    2012

  6. [14]

    Improving structure from motion with reliable resectioning

    Rajbir Kataria, Joseph DeGol, and Derek Hoiem. Improving structure from motion with reliable resectioning. 2020 Inter- national Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 41–50, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014. 6

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r.ArXiv, abs/2406.09756,

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J´erˆome Revaud. Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r.ArXiv, abs/2406.09756,

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Distinctive image features from scale- invariant keypoints

    David G Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale- invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 60:91–110, 2004. 2, 6

    2004

  10. [18]

    Leveraging cam- era triplets for efficient and accurate structure-from-motion

    Lalit Manam and Venu Madhav Govindu. Leveraging cam- era triplets for efficient and accurate structure-from-motion. 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4959–4968, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [19]

    Liu, and Maojun Zhang

    Yang Peng, Shen Yan, Yuxiang Liu, Y . Liu, and Maojun Zhang. View graph construction for scenes with duplicate structures via graph convolutional network. IET Comput. Vis., 16:389–402, 2022. 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Sinha, Richard Szeliski, and Drew Steedly

    Richard Roberts, Sudipta N. Sinha, Richard Szeliski, and Drew Steedly. Structure from motion for scenes with large duplicate structures. CVPR 2011, pages 3137–3144, 2011. 2

    2011

  13. [21]

    Neighbourhood consen- sus networks

    Ignacio Rocco, Mircea Cimpoi, Relja Arandjelovi´c, Akihiko Torii, Tomas Pajdla, and Josef Sivic. Neighbourhood consen- sus networks. In Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst., 2018. 2

    2018

  14. [22]

    Superglue: Learning feature match- ing with graph neural networks

    Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. Superglue: Learning feature match- ing with graph neural networks. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4937–4946, 2019. 6

    2020

  15. [23]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 4104–4113, 2016. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2016

  16. [24]

    Graph-based consistent matching for structure-from- motion

    Tianwei Shen, Siyu Zhu, Tian Fang, Runze Zhang, and Long Quan. Graph-based consistent matching for structure-from- motion. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2016. 2

    2016

  17. [25]

    Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers

    Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Yuang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 8922–8931, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Megascenes: Scene-level view synthesis at scale

    Joseph Tung, Gene Chou, Ruojin Cai, Guandao Yang, Kai Zhang, Gordon Wetzstein, Bharath Hariharan, and Noah Snavely. Megascenes: Scene-level view synthesis at scale. ArXiv, abs/2406.11819, 2024. 5, 6, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hierarchical image link selection scheme for duplicate struc- ture disambiguation

    Fan Wang, Aditi Nayak, Yogesh Agrawal, and Roy Shilkrot. Hierarchical image link selection scheme for duplicate struc- ture disambiguation. In British Machine Vision Conference,

  20. [28]

    Vggsfm: Visual geometry grounded deep structure from motion

    Jianyuan Wang, Nikita Karaev, Christian Rupprecht, and David Novotny. Vggsfm: Visual geometry grounded deep structure from motion. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 21686–21697, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    DUSt3R: Geometric 3d vision made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and J ´erˆome Revaud. DUSt3R: Geometric 3d vision made easy. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 20697–20709, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  22. [30]

    Mapillary street-level sequences: A dataset for lifelong place recogni- tion

    Frederik Warburg, Søren Hauberg, Manuel L´opez-Antequera, Pau Gargallo, Yubin Kuang, and Javier Civera. Mapillary street-level sequences: A dataset for lifelong place recogni- tion. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 2623–2632,

  23. [31]

    Network principles for sfm: Disambiguating repeated structures with local context

    Kyle Wilson and Noah Snavely. Network principles for sfm: Disambiguating repeated structures with local context. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 513–520, 2013. 2, 6, 8

    2013

  24. [32]

    Distinguishing the indistinguishable: Exploring structural am- biguities via geodesic context

    Qingan Yan, Long Yang, Ling Zhang, and Chunxia Xiao. Distinguishing the indistinguishable: Exploring structural am- biguities via geodesic context. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 3836–3844, 2017. 2, 6

    2017

  25. [33]

    Lift: Learned invariant feature transform

    Kwang Moo Yi, Eduard Trulls, Vincent Lepetit, and Pascal Fua. Lift: Learned invariant feature transform. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., pages 467–483, 2016. 2

    2016

  26. [34]

    What can missing correspondences tell us about 3d structure and motion? In Conf

    Christopher Zach, Arnold Irschara, and Horst Bischof. What can missing correspondences tell us about 3d structure and motion? In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 1–8,

  27. [35]

    Disambiguating visual relations using loop constraints

    Christopher Zach, Manfred Klopschitz, and Marc Pollefeys. Disambiguating visual relations using loop constraints. In Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pages 1426–1433, 2010. 2

    2010

Pith tools

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