Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 27 references

ExploreGS: a vision-based low overhead framework for 3D scene reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ExploreGS reconstructs complete 3D Gaussian Splatting scenes from RGB drone video in about one minute, roughly five times faster than prior methods, while in the reported tests PSNR stays within about a decibel of the fastest baseline.

desk verdict A credible edge-drone reconstruction pipeline whose central quality claim is undercut by a flawed PSNR comparison that ignores scene completeness. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10578 v1 pith:SELX52I5 submitted 2025-05-14 eess.IV cs.CV

Yunji Feng , Chengpu Yu , Fengrui Ran , Zhi Yang , Yinni Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingdronereconstructionvision-basedBag-of-WordsimageselectionMASt3Ron-boardRGB-only
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 proposes ExploreGS, a drone-deployed pipeline that turns ordinary RGB video into a photorealistic 3D Gaussian Splatting model without lidar and without offline structure-from-motion. The central claim is that replacing lidar point clouds with a neural vision model, and pairing images through Bag-of-Words selection, cuts reconstruction time to about one minute on an edge processor while keeping reconstruction quality comparable. The authors validate this in a simulated warehouse and a real indoor flight, reporting PSNR within about 0.8 dB of the fastest baseline and a reduction of 84 to 95 percent in redundant image pairs. The result, if it holds, makes same-flight, on-board 3D reconstruction practical for small drones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the Match Selector, a Bag-of-Words similarity filter with thresholds tau=0.03 and thrin=0.04 that dynamically normalises scores against a recent historical frame and admits only image pairs with overlapping views. This step cuts the visual inference workload from thousands of image pairs to fewer than 180 for a 60-frame sequence, which is what makes on-board 3DGS training feasible. The vision model MASt3R then converts each admitted pair into a dense local point cloud, and a global alignment step jointly optimises camera extrinsics and scale factors before Gaussian Splatting training begins.

What would settle it

Run the drone through a scene containing a long textureless corridor or a large low-overlap loop and measure the completeness of the final 3DGS model against a lidar ground truth; if the selected image pairs leave holes where MASt3R had no overlap, the completeness gap will show up as missing geometry and a sharp PSNR drop in those views.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the expensive parts of 3D reconstruction, lidar scanning and exhaustive image matching, can be replaced by a cheap selective pairing step plus a learned stereo model. ExploreGS lets the drone autonomously explore an unknown environment while capturing RGB frames, uses FAST and BRIEF features with a Bag-of-Words dictionary to admit only a small set of overlapping image pairs, feeds those pairs to MASt3R to produce local dense point clouds, globally aligns them, and initializes 3DGS training on the merged cloud. The reported result is complete scene reconstruction in roughly one minute on a Jetson Orin NX edge processor. While InstantSplat sometimes reaches a slightly higher PSNR, the paper reports that it can cover only part of the scene when the initial point cloud is wrong, whereas ExploreGS produces the full model.

Load-bearing premise

The Match Selector's fixed similarity thresholds (tau=0.03 and thrin=0.04) are assumed to keep enough overlapping views of every region for MASt3R to reconstruct and align the full scene, but the paper reports no coverage metric, no failure cases, and no sensitivity analysis for these thresholds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Drone 3D reconstruction no longer requires lidar payloads or a second surveying flight, so the same flight that explores also produces the final model.
  • The 84 to 95 percent reduction in image pairs lowers on-board compute enough that 3DGS training runs on an edge processor in about a minute.
  • The pipeline sidesteps classic SfM failure in low-overlap or texture-poor sequences, because pair selection and dense geometry come from a learned model rather than epipolar feature matching.
  • If the approach transfers to other scenes, inspection and mapping tasks could get same-flight photorealistic models instead of post-processed lidar fusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to run the same pipeline on scenes with heavily repetitive texture or large textureless walls, where BoW similarity scores may not reflect true 3D overlap; the pair selector should be compared against ground-truth covisibility.
  • The reported speed-up depends on MASt3R's forward passes dominating the pipeline; on drones with weaker GPUs the real-time pairing step could become the bottleneck, so profiling the Match Selector separately would locate where the fivefold gain lives.
  • The same selective-pairing idea could apply to other dense stereo models or to online 3DGS training during flight, which the paper lists as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents ExploreGS, an RGB-only 3D scene reconstruction framework for drones. It replaces LiDAR-based point cloud acquisition with MASt3R, a vision model that generates dense point clouds from selected image pairs, and uses a Bag-of-Words (BoW) based match selector to reduce the number of image pairs by 84-95%. The resulting point cloud initializes a 3D Gaussian Splatting model that is trained in about one minute. Experiments in a Gazebo simulation and one real-world room compare PSNR and runtime against InstantSplat, Splatfacto, Mip-NeRF, Bio-NeRF, and NeRF, reporting a factor-of-five speedup with PSNR within about 0.2-0.8 dB of InstantSplat.

Significance. The proposed pipeline is a practical integration of recent components (MASt3R, 3DGS, and VINS-style BoW) into a drone system with on-board edge inference, which is timely and potentially useful. A strength is the real-world validation on a physical quadrotor. The 84-95% data reduction and the reported speedup on an edge processor are potentially valuable. However, the quantitative support for the headline claim of comparable quality is not yet convincing: PSNR is reported without completeness or coverage metrics, and the paper itself notes that a higher-PSNR competitor reconstructs only part of the scene. No code or dataset release is mentioned, and all quantitative results are single runs. I found no circularity: the compared systems are external and the thresholds are hand-set, so the circularity burden is effectively zero.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B, Table II] Section IV-B states that InstantSplat 'reconstructs only a quarter of the scene' yet obtains a higher PSNR (24.12 dB) than ExploreGS (23.91 dB), and attributes this to spherical-harmonic adaptability. This is a direct admission that the reported PSNR is not a reliable indicator of complete-scene reconstruction quality. Since the central claim is comparable quality of the complete 3D model, the evaluation must include completeness and coverage metrics (e.g., the fraction of evaluation views or pixels backed by valid geometry, or accuracy against a ground-truth scan) and report PSNR on the full evaluation set as well as on covered subsets. Without this, Tables II and III do not support the claim of comparable quality.
  2. [IV-B, Tables II-III] All PSNR and timing entries are single runs on a self-built Gazebo warehouse and one real-world room. No error bars, repeated trials, or standard datasets are reported, so the 0.2-0.8 dB difference to InstantSplat is within plausible run-to-run variation. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple runs and include a standard multi-view or sparse-view dataset (e.g., DTU, Tanks and Temples, or the benchmark used by InstantSplat) to allow external comparison.
  3. [III-B, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The BoW admission filter with thresholds tau=0.03 and thrin=0.04 determines which image pairs are passed to MASt3R, and the paper reports an 84-95% reduction in image pairs. However, no sensitivity analysis is provided and no coverage or completeness metric is given to show that discarded images do not correspond to under-reconstructed regions. Texture-poor or low-overlap segments could be filtered out, causing holes in the final model. The authors should report the number of selected keyframes and pairs per scene and analyze the effect of varying tau and thrin on both runtime and reconstruction completeness.
  4. [IV-A, Tables II-III] The timing comparison is not apples-to-apples. The simulation for the proposed method runs on an RTX 3060, while all comparative algorithms run on a server with 4 RTX 4090 GPUs. While this may understate the speed advantage of the proposed method, the authors should specify exactly which stages are included in 'Time' (data acquisition, pair selection, point cloud generation, global alignment, 3DGS training) and report timings on the same hardware, or at least with identical GPU models; otherwise the '5 times faster' claim cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'leverags' should be 'leverages'.
  2. [III-A] There is an extra space before the comma in 'occupancy grid ,'; please fix the formatting.
  3. [III-C, Eq. (10)] The confidence map q was defined as per-pixel earlier in the section, but Eq. (10) uses q as a scalar weight in the sum over pairs; clarify whether q is a pixel-wise weight, an aggregated score, or something else.
  4. [IV-B] 'Comparisions' should be 'Comparisons'.
  5. [IV-C] The phrase 'less than five-sixth of the computational time' is confusing: 50 seconds is about one-seventh of 6 minutes, so 'less than one-sixth' or a precise ratio would be clearer.
  6. [Section III-B] The notation for the threshold is inconsistent: 'thrin' appears in Eqs. (3)-(5) and in the experimental setup, but the surrounding text also uses 'thr_in'; please define it once and use it consistently.
  7. [Fig. 6 and Fig. 9] The captions state which reconstruction is 'Ours' and which is 'InstantSplat', but they do not indicate which image shows the complete model and which shows the partial one; please add this information to the captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pipeline uses external pretrained models and manually chosen thresholds, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external system components. The point cloud is produced by MASt3R [15], an externally published pretrained vision model, and the final renderings come from the standard 3D Gaussian Splatting trainer [16]; neither component is defined in terms of the paper's reported PSNR or timing results. The BoW match selector in Section III-B uses a fixed visual vocabulary from VINS [19] and manually set thresholds (tau = 0.03, thrin = 0.04 in Section IV-A), not parameters fitted to the outcome metrics, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction step. Global alignment in Eq. (10) minimizes multi-view consistency errors on MASt3R's confidence-weighted correspondences, and the final 3DGS optimization is a standard external objective; no equation in the paper takes the reported PSNR, runtime, or completeness claim as an input. The admitted evaluation caveat in Section IV-B that InstantSplat 'reconstructs only a quarter of the scene' while achieving a higher PSNR is a validity concern about how quality is compared, not a circular derivation: the proposed method's completeness claim is not obtained by assuming the completeness metric it then reports. No self-citation is load-bearing, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely renamed. Accordingly, the circularity burden is met with no significant finding and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system introduces no new mathematical derivation and no new physical or algorithmic entity. It rests on off-the-shelf MASt3R, 3DGS, VINS BoW, and frontier exploration, plus a small set of manually chosen matching thresholds. The only in-paper adjustable quantities are a few hyperparameters and the training iteration count, none of which are validated with sensitivity studies.

free parameters (4)
  • similarity threshold thrin = 0.04
    Controls admission of keyframes into the BoW database (Eq. 5). No sensitivity analysis is given; it directly sets the reported 84-95% data reduction.
  • pair similarity floor tau = 0.03
    Controls which image pairs are sent to MASt3R (Eqs. 3-5). No sensitivity analysis is given; it affects inference workload and reconstruction completeness.
  • FAST intensity threshold t = not specified
    Used for FAST corner detection in Section III-B. The value is not reported, making the feature extraction step hard to reproduce exactly.
  • 3DGS training iteration count = not specified
    The paper says only a few training iterations are needed, but the exact number used in Tables II and III is not reported, directly affecting the runtime comparisons.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MASt3R yields sufficiently accurate dense point clouds and camera extrinsics from RGB image pairs with partial overlap.
    The whole reconstruction stage depends on this external pretrained model. Section III-C invokes MASt3R for per-pixel depth and intrinsic estimation without failure analysis for texture-poor or low-overlap cases.
  • domain assumption The pretrained BoW vocabulary from VINS-Mono generalizes to the test scenes.
    Section III-B uses a pretrained visual dictionary from VINS [19] without retraining or domain adaptation. Pair selection quality depends on this vocabulary matching the scene content.
  • domain assumption Frontier-based occupancy-grid exploration provides complete enough image coverage for reconstruction.
    Section III-A assumes unexplored frontiers and viewpoint planning produce views with sufficient overlap for MASt3R. No coverage metric or ablation is reported.
  • domain assumption 3D Gaussian Splatting initialized from the MASt3R point cloud converges with a minimal number of training iterations.
    The claim of one-minute or 50-second reconstruction time depends on fast convergence, but no convergence curve or iteration count is given.
  • standard math The standard 3DGS rendering equations are accepted as correct.
    Equations 6 and 7 are quoted from the published 3D Gaussian Splatting paper [16] and are not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ExploreGS: a vision-based low overhead framework for 3D scene reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SELX52I5

@misc{pith2026250510578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ExploreGS: a vision-based low overhead framework for 3D scene reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SELX52I5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10578}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a low-overhead, vision-based 3D scene reconstruction framework for drones, named ExploreGS. By using RGB images, ExploreGS replaces traditional lidar-based point cloud acquisition process with a vision model, achieving a high-quality reconstruction at a lower cost. The framework integrates scene exploration and model reconstruction, and leverags a Bag-of-Words(BoW) model to enable real-time processing capabilities, therefore, the 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) training can be executed on-board. Comprehensive experiments in both simulation and real-world environments demonstrate the efficiency and applicability of the ExploreGS framework on resource-constrained devices, while maintaining reconstruction quality comparable to state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10578 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Traditional SfM algorithms can achieve good results in scenes with a single object (left), but they usually fail in scenes where the overlap between images in the sequence is small (right) In this paper, we present an autonomous drone-based 3D reconstruction framework that exclusively leverages cam￾era for 3DGS-based scene reconstruction on-board. Our approach integrates a visual model to supplant traditional lidar-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our ExploreGS framework. We collect RGB data while exploring the unknown scene. Given two images with common viewing area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The quadrotor of real-world test. Mtsp(v1, v2) = max dis(v1, v2) vmax , |yaw1 −yaw2| yawmax  (1) where function dis calculate the length of the collision-free path from v1 to v2. vmax and yawmax are the linear and angular velocities of the drone. Our trajectory generation module implements the frame￾work of [18] to produce a smooth and dynamically feasible B-spline trajectory. By limiting yawmax, we ensure stable … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Selection method of image acquisition in flight. The number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gaussian Splatting model reconstructed by Ours (a) and InstantSplat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The gazebo world (a). The process of data collection and exploration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The quadrotor of real-world test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The real world (a). The process of data collection and exploration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gaussian Splatting model rendered by Ours (a) and InstantSplat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Plan3d: Viewpoint and trajectory optimization for aerial multi-view stereo reconstruction,

    B. Hepp, M. Nießner, and O. Hilliges, “Plan3d: Viewpoint and trajectory optimization for aerial multi-view stereo reconstruction,” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 38, no. 1, Dec. 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Real-time uav path planning for autonomous urban scene reconstruction,

    Q. Kuang, J. Wu, J. Pan, and B. Zhou, “Real-time uav path planning for autonomous urban scene reconstruction,” in 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 1156–1162

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Fc-planner: A skeleton-guided planning framework for fast aerial coverage of complex 3d scenes,

    C. Feng, H. Li, M. Zhang, X. Chen, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Fc-planner: A skeleton-guided planning framework for fast aerial coverage of complex 3d scenes,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 8686–8692

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Next-best-view planning for surface reconstruction of large-scale 3d environments with multiple uavs,

    G. Hardouin, J. Moras, F. Morbidi, J. Marzat, and E. M. Mouaddib, “Next-best-view planning for surface reconstruction of large-scale 3d environments with multiple uavs,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 1567– 1574

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Active 3d modeling via online multi- view stereo,

    S. Song, D. Kim, and S. Jo, “Active 3d modeling via online multi- view stereo,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 5284–5291

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Predrecon: A prediction-boosted planning framework for fast and high-quality au- tonomous aerial reconstruction,

    C. Feng, H. Li, F. Gao, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Predrecon: A prediction-boosted planning framework for fast and high-quality au- tonomous aerial reconstruction,” in 2023 IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 1207–1213

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Gs-planner: A gaussian-splatting-based planning framework for active high-fidelity reconstruction,

    R. Jin, Y . Gao, Y . Wang, Y . Wu, H. Lu, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Gs-planner: A gaussian-splatting-based planning framework for active high-fidelity reconstruction,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024, pp. 11 202–11 209

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Key.net: Keypoint detection by handcrafted and learned cnn filters revisited,

    A. Barroso-Laguna and K. Mikolajczyk, “Key.net: Keypoint detection by handcrafted and learned cnn filters revisited,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 698– 711, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Hsfm: Hybrid structure-from- motion,

    H. Cui, X. Gao, S. Shen, and Z. Hu, “Hsfm: Hybrid structure-from- motion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Global structure-from-motion revisited,

    L. Pan, D. Bar ´ath, M. Pollefeys, and J. L. Sch ¨onberger, “Global structure-from-motion revisited,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2024 , A. Leonardis, E. Ricci, S. Roth, O. Russakovsky, T. Sattler, and G. Varol, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 58–77

    2024

  3. [11]

    Adaptive patch deformation for textureless-resilient multi-view stereo,

    Y . Wang, Z. Zeng, T. Guan, W. Yang, Z. Chen, W. Liu, L. Xu, and Y . Luo, “Adaptive patch deformation for textureless-resilient multi-view stereo,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2023, pp. 1621–1630

    2023

  4. [12]

    Vision transformers for dense prediction: A survey,

    S. Zuo, Y . Xiao, X. Chang, and X. Wang, “Vision transformers for dense prediction: A survey,” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 253, p. 109552, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024, pp. 10 371–10 381

    2024

  6. [14]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy,

    S. Wang, V . Leroy, Y . Cabon, B. Chidlovskii, and J. Revaud, “Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024, pp. 20 697–20 709

    2024

  7. [15]

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

    B. Duisterhof, L. Zust, P. Weinzaepfel, V . Leroy, Y . Cabon, and J. Revaud, “Mast3r-sfm: a fully-integrated solution for unconstrained structure-from-motion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19152 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 42, no. 4, July 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Fuel: Fast uav exploration using incremental frontier structure and hierarchical planning,

    B. Zhou, Y . Zhang, X. Chen, and S. Shen, “Fuel: Fast uav exploration using incremental frontier structure and hierarchical planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 779–786, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Robust and efficient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,

    B. Zhou, F. Gao, L. Wang, C. Liu, and S. Shen, “Robust and efficient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3529–3536, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Bags of binary words for fast place recognition in image sequences,

    D. Galvez-Lpez and J. D. Tardos, “Bags of binary words for fast place recognition in image sequences,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1188–1197, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Machine learning for high-speed corner detection,

    E. Rosten and T. Drummond, “Machine learning for high-speed corner detection,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2006 , A. Leonardis, H. Bischof, and A. Pinz, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 430–443

    2006

  14. [22]

    Brief: Binary robust independent elementary features,

    M. Calonder, V . Lepetit, C. Strecha, and P. Fua, “Brief: Binary robust independent elementary features,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2010 , K. Daniilidis, P. Maragos, and N. Paragios, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 778–792

    2010

  15. [23]

    In- stantsplat: Unbounded sparse-view pose-free gaussian splatting in 40 seconds,

    Z. Fan, W. Cong, K. Wen, K. Wang, J. Zhang, X. Ding, D. Xu, B. Ivanovic, M. Pavone, G. Pavlakos, Z. Wang, and Y . Wang, “In- stantsplat: Unbounded sparse-view pose-free gaussian splatting in 40 seconds,” 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Splatfacto-w: A nerfstudio imple- mentation of gaussian splatting for unconstrained photo collections,

    C. Xu, J. Kerr, and A. Kanazawa, “Splatfacto-w: A nerfstudio imple- mentation of gaussian splatting for unconstrained photo collections,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12306 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, M. Tancik, P. Hedman, R. Martin-Brualla, and P. P. Srinivasan, “Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , October 2021, pp. ...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Bionerf: Biologically plausible neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    L. A. Passos, D. Rodrigues, D. Jodas, K. A. Costa, A. Adeel, and J. P. Papa, “Bionerf: Biologically plausible neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07310 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Nerf: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Commun. ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, Dec. 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.