Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

iSegMan: Interactive Segment-and-Manipulate 3D Gaussians

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 iSegMan claims that a 2D click can select a precise 3D region of a Gaussian-splat scene and drive editing operations, with no scene-specific training.

desk verdict The system is practical, but the VGV voting equation as written contradicts the stated 0.8 threshold and would reject almost every ordinary object; that must be fixed before the numbers are credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11934 v1 pith:L3MQQIVV submitted 2025-05-17 cs.CV

Yian Zhao , Wanshi Xu , Ruochong Zheng , Pengchong Qiao , Chang Liu , Jie Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattinginteractivesegmentationscenemanipulationepipolargeometryvisibility-basedvotingregioncontroltext-guidededitinguserinteraction
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

iSegMan is an interactive system for selecting and manipulating parts of a 3D scene stored as Gaussian splats. The paper claims that a user who supplies clicks (with optional negative clicks) in any 2D view can isolate a precise 3D region and then edit, recolor, rescale, copy, combine, or remove it, with no per-scene training step. The two mechanisms that carry this claim are epipolar-guided propagation of the click to other views and a visibility-based voting game that maps 2D mask votes onto 3D Gaussians. On the SPIn-NeRF and NVOS benchmarks the method reports 92.4/99.1 and 92.0/98.4 mean intersection-over-union/mean accuracy, with segmentation per interaction in 4 to 6 seconds after a short feature-extraction pass. If correct, this makes 3D scene editing interactive rather than a batch optimization tied to one scene.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a per-Gaussian vote tally. A 2D pixel in a given view votes for every 3D Gaussian that contributes to its rendered color, with voting power equal to the Gaussian's alpha-blending weight, computed from the splatting opacity and the accumulated transmittance of occluders in front of it; the final vote share of a Gaussian is the average over pixels and views of these weights, restricted to pixels inside the segmenter's mask. The epipolar constraint is the other load-bearing piece: it turns a 2D click into a ray, restricts the matching search in every other view to a line, and makes cross-view propagation robust with a lightweight feature-similarity match. These two components together replace per-scene feature training, and the iterative inspection mechanism filters views in which the target is occluded or out of frame.

What would settle it

Sweep the vote cutoff from about 0.5 to 0.95 separately for each scene on the SPIn-NeRF and NVOS benchmarks, computing mean intersection-over-union at each value; if the per-scene cutoff that maximizes accuracy moves substantially away from 0.8 and the accuracy gap is larger than a few points, the claim that one fixed threshold governs reliable region control is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that precise 3D region control can be achieved in Gaussian-splat scenes without any scene-specific training by treating region extraction as a voting game between 2D pixels and 3D Gaussians. User clicks in one view are propagated to other views by projecting the click's ray onto epipolar lines and matching features along those lines; the propagated clicks are fed to a promptable segmenter to obtain 2D masks, and each visible Gaussian accumulates votes weighted by its alpha-blending visibility contribution to each masked pixel. Gaussians whose normalized vote totals exceed a threshold are selected as the target region, and an iterative inspection step discards views where the predicted mask does not overlap the currently selected region. The same region control then drives a toolbox of manipulation functions, including text-driven semantic editing, colorization, scaling, copy-and-paste, combination across scenes, and removal.

Load-bearing premise

The system separates target from background by a single fixed cutoff of 0.8 on the normalized vote score, applied the same way to every scene and dataset; if the best cutoff varies by scene, the reported accuracy numbers and the claim of reliable region control would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If iSegMan's claim holds, existing 3D Gaussian editing pipelines can gain local region control without a pre-processing training phase.
  • Because region extraction is tied to alpha-blended visibility, improvements in opacity estimation or splatting quality should transfer directly to better region selection.
  • Views can be subsampled to 10 percent with only a small reported drop in accuracy, so segmentation speed can be traded against precision without retraining.
  • The interaction-driven toolbox enables complex edits to be assembled incrementally rather than specified in one prompt.
  • Segmentation per interaction in 4 to 6 seconds, if reproducible, moves the method close to a live editing loop rather than offline processing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same visibility-weighted voting scheme should transfer to other explicit radiance representations that support alpha blending; the paper demonstrates it only on Gaussian splats.
  • A natural testable extension is an adaptive vote threshold per scene or per click, since the paper uses a single fixed threshold of 0.8 and reports no sensitivity analysis.
  • Epipolar-guided interaction propagation could serve as a general multi-view annotation propagation tool, for example propagating user scribbles across video frames or across views of a scanned scene.
  • Held-out tests on heavily occluded or thin objects would probe whether visibility-weighted voting sharpens or blurs the boundary between target and occluder.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents iSegMan, an interactive framework for segmenting and manipulating 3D Gaussian Splatting scenes from 2D clicks. It proposes Epipolar-guided Interaction Propagation (EIP) to propagate clicks across views, Visibility-based Gaussian Voting (VGV) to lift 2D SAM masks to 3D Gaussians without scene-specific training, an Iterative Inspection Mechanism (IIM) to discard unreliable masks, and a manipulation toolbox (semantic editing, colorize, scaling, copy-paste, combination, removal). The authors report mIoU/mAcc of 92.4/99.1 on SPIn-NeRF and 92.0/98.4 on NVOS, qualitative and quantitative comparisons against several prior methods, and ablations of EIP, IIM, and the feature extractor.

Significance. If the reported behavior is reproducible, the framework offers a practical, training-free route from 2D user interactions to 3DGS region control. The strengths of the paper are its clearly specified pipeline, the use of standard benchmarks, the robustness analysis over view sampling rates and view order, and the ablations showing the contributions of the epipolar constraint and the iterative inspection mechanism. However, the central VGV voting rule as described in Eq. (7) is inconsistent with the stated threshold, and the timing comparisons in Tables 2–3 contradict the "optimal execution speed" claim. Because these issues affect the core contribution, the significance can only be assessed after they are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (7); Appendix 1.2] Equation (7) defines Ψ_j as the sum of α-weighted votes normalized by h·w·K, i.e., the fraction of all pixel-view pairs weighted by visibility. For a target whose splats cover A pixels per view on average, the numerator is roughly K·A, so Ψ_j ≈ A/(h·w). A typical object occupying 10% of each view gives Ψ_j ≈ 0.1, far below the 0.8 threshold stated in Appendix 1.2. With the rule as written, only objects covering roughly 80% of every training view could be selected, which is inconsistent with the high mIoU reported on SPIn-NeRF and NVOS, where targets have small footprints. Please correct the normalization (e.g., divide by Σ_i Σ_k Υ_{i,j}) or state explicitly that the threshold applies to a different quantity, and verify the reported numbers with the corrected rule.
  2. [Section 4.3, Tables 2 and 3; Abstract and Introduction] In Tables 2 and 3, SAGA reports a per-interaction segmentation time of 10 ms, while iSegMan reports 6 s and 4 s, respectively. The manuscript's claims of "optimal execution speed" (Abstract) and "optimal balance of performance and execution speed" (Introduction) are therefore unsupported unless they refer to total preprocessing time rather than interactive latency. Please qualify the efficiency claim and clarify which quantity is being optimized.
  3. [Section 2.2; Tables 2 and 3] Click-Gaussian [10] is cited in Sec. 2.2 as a SAM-based interactive 3DGS segmentation method, but it is absent from the quantitative comparisons in Tables 2 and 3. Because Click-Gaussian directly targets the same task (interactive segmentation of 3D Gaussians from 2D clicks), omitting it weakens the claim of state-of-the-art performance. Please add this baseline or justify its omission.
  4. [Appendix 1.2; Section 4.4] The vote threshold τ = 0.8 is set by hand in Appendix 1.2 and no sensitivity analysis is reported. Even after correcting the normalization issue in Eq. (7), the threshold is a load-bearing hyperparameter because it determines which Gaussians are selected. Please report mIoU/mAcc for a range of thresholds on at least SPIn-NeRF and demonstrate that the reported results are not an artifact of a single tuned value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, text before Eq. (4)] The camera pose for the new viewpoint is written as π_˜v = R_˜v[R_˜v|t_˜v], where the same symbol R_˜v is used for both the projection matrix and the extrinsic rotation; Eq. (4) instead uses K_˜v. Please use consistent notation, e.g., Π_˜v = K_˜v[R_˜v|t_˜v].
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (9)] The update rule in Eq. (9) mixes an L1 loss and a perceptual distance D(·,·) without specifying their relative weights or the exact form of D. Please provide the full loss definition to make the optimization reproducible.
  3. [Figures 4 and 5] The correspondence between the original and edited views is not always visually evident; adding view indices or arranging side-by-side comparisons of the same viewpoint would make the qualitative editing results easier to verify.
  4. [Appendix 3, Tables B and C] The table captions use 'IIM' without expanding the acronym; please define it in the caption or in the main text to keep the appendix self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: VGV and EIP are externally validated pipelines; the fixed threshold is a hyperparameter, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. EIP propagates user clicks via standard epipolar geometry and DINO feature affinity; VGV aggregates SAM 2D masks through alpha-blended Gaussian visibility, and the selection threshold tau=0.8 is a fixed hand-set constant, not a parameter fitted to the reported benchmarks. The segmentation scores on SPIn-NeRF and NVOS are computed against fixed human-annotated ground-truth masks, not against the SAM masks fed into the method, so the outputs are not equal to the inputs by construction. Semantic editing relies on the external InstructPix2Pix editor and is evaluated with the external CLIP model and a human user study. No load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation: the references to VarGPT and Vasparse are unrelated to the method, and no prior work by these authors is invoked to justify a core premise. The apparent numerical inconsistency between Eq. (7)'s 1/(h*w*K) normalization and the 0.8 threshold is a correctness or robustness concern about whether the stated rule can select typical objects; it is not a circularity, because even if the rule as written rejects target Gaussians, that failure would not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method leans on standard epipolar geometry, pretrained SAM and DINO models, and one hand-set threshold tau=0.8. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Vote threshold tau = 0.8
    Gaussians with normalized vote count above tau are selected. Set in Appendix 1.2; no sensitivity analysis; directly controls segmentation output.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Epipolar geometry: a camera ray projects to an epipolar line in another view, so the propagated click must lie on that line.
    Invoked in Theorem 1, Sec. 3.1; standard result from Hartley and Zisserman [18].
  • domain assumption SAM produces correct 2D masks for the target object in views where it is visible, given the propagated click.
    Sec. 3.2; VGV depends on SAM masks as votes; IIM filters failures but does not recover from a consistently wrong segmenter.
  • domain assumption DINO features are semantically consistent across views, so affinity matching along the epipolar line finds the correct matching click.
    Sec. 3.1; the interaction matching uses DINO; ablation in Appendix Tab. D shows robustness across extractors, but accuracy depends on feature quality.
  • ad hoc to paper Alpha-blending weights from Eq. (6) are a valid proxy for the probability that a pixel and a Gaussian belong to the same region.
    Sec. 3.2; this is the paper's design choice for voting power, inspired by splatting alpha blending; no proof of optimality.
  • domain assumption A single fixed threshold tau=0.8 generalizes across scenes and datasets.
    Appendix 1.2; the same threshold is used everywhere without sensitivity analysis; if optimal tau varies by scene, reported accuracy may change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of iSegMan: Interactive Segment-and-Manipulate 3D Gaussians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3MQQIVV

@misc{pith2026250511934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: iSegMan: Interactive Segment-and-Manipulate 3D Gaussians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3MQQIVV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11934}
}
read the original abstract

The efficient rendering and explicit nature of 3DGS promote the advancement of 3D scene manipulation. However, existing methods typically encounter challenges in controlling the manipulation region and are unable to furnish the user with interactive feedback, which inevitably leads to unexpected results. Intuitively, incorporating interactive 3D segmentation tools can compensate for this deficiency. Nevertheless, existing segmentation frameworks impose a pre-processing step of scene-specific parameter training, which limits the efficiency and flexibility of scene manipulation. To deliver a 3D region control module that is well-suited for scene manipulation with reliable efficiency, we propose interactive Segment-and-Manipulate 3D Gaussians (iSegMan), an interactive segmentation and manipulation framework that only requires simple 2D user interactions in any view. To propagate user interactions to other views, we propose Epipolar-guided Interaction Propagation (EIP), which innovatively exploits epipolar constraint for efficient and robust interaction matching. To avoid scene-specific training to maintain efficiency, we further propose the novel Visibility-based Gaussian Voting (VGV), which obtains 2D segmentations from SAM and models the region extraction as a voting game between 2D Pixels and 3D Gaussians based on Gaussian visibility. Taking advantage of the efficient and precise region control of EIP and VGV, we put forth a Manipulation Toolbox to implement various functions on selected regions, enhancing the controllability, flexibility and practicality of scene manipulation. Extensive results on 3D scene manipulation and segmentation tasks fully demonstrate the significant advantages of iSegMan. Project page is available at https://zhao-yian.github.io/iSegMan.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): Existing 3D manipulation methods. The red circles mark the irrelevant regions affected by editing, leading to unex￾pected results. (b): Our iSegMan achieves precise control of the manipulation region and interactively performs various functions. tial computing [39]. The advancement of these applications continues to propel innovation in user experience. Recently, the efficient differentiable rendering and expli… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of iSegMan. iSegMan contains two novel region control algorithms that are well-suited for scene manipulation with reliable efficiency: Epipolar-guided Interaction Propagation (EIP) and Visibility-based Voting Game (VGV), and a Manipulation Toolbox that includes various manipulation functions. EIP accepts 2D user interactions in any view and leverages epipolar constraint to efficiently and robustly propagate… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the epipolar constraint. sians based on Gaussian visibility. Based on the versatile functions of the manipulation toolbox, iSegMan greatly en￾hances the controllability, flexibility and practicality of 3D scene manipulation. The details are described below. 3.1. Epipolar-guided Interaction Propagation The EIP is predicated on the principles of Multi-View Stereo (MVS) [38] technology and consists of t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of semantic editing. Orange arrows indicate interactive 3D segmentation, and blue arrows indicate semantic editing. Instruct-GS2GS GaussianEditor iSegMan (Ours) “ Turn him into a clown.” “ Turn him into a black man.” Original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of semantic editing. to the target color ct. The latter is achieved by adjusting the mean color value to ct, as calculated in Eq. (10). ci = ci + (ct − 1 Nˆ X Nˆ i=1 ci), (10) where Nˆ is the number of selected 3D Gaussians. Scaling. This function enlarges o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of other manipulation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of interactive 3D segmentation. 4.2. Qualitative Results Results of Semantic Editing. To demonstrate the advan￾tages of our iSegMan, we first present the semantic edit￾ing results on four cases, cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Click-gaussian: Interactive segmenta- tion to any 3d gaussians

    Seokhun Choi, Hyeonseop Song, Jaechul Kim, Taehyeong Kim, and Hoseok Do. Click-gaussian: Interactive segmenta- tion to any 3d gaussians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11793,

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    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. 6, 1

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Algorithm for computer control of a digital plotter

    Jack E Bresenham. Algorithm for computer control of a digital plotter. In Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, pages 1–6. 1998. 4

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 5, 1

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Augmented real- ity technologies, systems and applications.Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51:341–377, 2011

    Julie Carmigniani, Borko Furht, Marco Anisetti, Paolo Cer- avolo, Ernesto Damiani, and Misa Ivkovic. Augmented real- ity technologies, systems and applications.Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51:341–377, 2011. 1

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 4, 1, 2

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Segment any 3d 3 gaussians

    Jiazhong Cen, Jiemin Fang, Chen Yang, Lingxi Xie, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Wei Shen, and Qi Tian. Segment any 3d 3 gaussians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00860 , 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Seg- ment anything in 3d with nerfs

    Jiazhong Cen, Zanwei Zhou, Jiemin Fang, Wei Shen, Lingxi Xie, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, et al. Seg- ment anything in 3d with nerfs. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36:25971–25990, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    An empiri- cal study of training self-supervised vision transformers

    Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, and Kaiming He. An empiri- cal study of training self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9640–9649, 2021. 2

    2021

  2. [9]

    Gaussianeditor: Swift and control- lable 3d editing with gaussian splatting

    Yiwen Chen, Zilong Chen, Chi Zhang, Feng Wang, Xi- aofeng Yang, Yikai Wang, Zhongang Cai, Lei Yang, Huaping Liu, and Guosheng Lin. Gaussianeditor: Swift and control- lable 3d editing with gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patt...

    2024

  3. [11]

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

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 1

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks

    Jiafei Duan, Samson Yu, Hui Li Tan, Hongyuan Zhu, and Cheston Tan. A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 6(2):230–244, 2022. 1

    2022

  5. [13]

    Stylegan-nada: Clip- guided domain adaptation of image generators

    Rinon Gal, Or Patashnik, Haggai Maron, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Stylegan-nada: Clip- guided domain adaptation of image generators. ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–13, 2022. 6, 7, 1

    2022

  6. [14]

    Textdeformer: Geometry manipu- lation using text guidance

    William Gao, Noam Aigerman, Thibault Groueix, V ova Kim, and Rana Hanocka. Textdeformer: Geometry manipu- lation using text guidance. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Con- ference Proceedings, pages 1–11, 2023. 2

    2023

  7. [15]

    Interactive segmentation of radiance fields

    Rahul Goel, Dhawal Sirikonda, Saurabh Saini, and PJ Narayanan. Interactive segmentation of radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 4201–4211, 2023. 3, 7, 8

    2023

  8. [16]

    Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey

    Yulan Guo, Hanyun Wang, Qingyong Hu, Hao Liu, Li Liu, and Mohammed Bennamoun. Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43(12):4338–4364, 2020. 1

    2020

  9. [17]

    Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19740–19750, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7, 1

    2023

  10. [18]

    Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision . Cambridge university press,

  11. [19]

    Semantic anything in 3d gaussians

    Xu Hu, Yuxi Wang, Lue Fan, Junsong Fan, Junran Peng, Zhen Lei, Qing Li, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Semantic anything in 3d gaussians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17857, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Point’n move: Interactive scene object manipu- lation on gaussian splatting radiance fields

    Jiajun Huang, Hongchuan Yu, Jianjun Zhang, and Hammadi Nait-Charif. Point’n move: Interactive scene object manipu- lation on gaussian splatting radiance fields. IET Image Pro- cessing, 2023. 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    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 Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4):1–14, 2023. 1, 2, 5

    2023

  14. [22]

    Lerf: Language embedded radiance fields

    Justin Kerr, Chung Min Kim, Ken Goldberg, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Matthew Tancik. Lerf: Language embedded radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 19729–19739,

  15. [23]

    Garfield: Group anything with radiance fields

    Chung Min Kim, Mingxuan Wu, Justin Kerr, Ken Gold- berg, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Garfield: Group anything with radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21530–21539, 2024. 3

    2024

  16. [24]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 202...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Interactive object segmentation in 3d point clouds

    Theodora Kontogianni, Ekin Celikkan, Siyu Tang, and Kon- rad Schindler. Interactive object segmentation in 3d point clouds. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2891–2897. IEEE, 2023. 2

    2023

  18. [26]

    iseg: Interactive 3d segmentation via interactive attention

    Itai Lang, Fei Xu, Dale Decatur, Sudarshan Babu, and Rana Hanocka. iseg: Interactive 3d segmentation via interactive attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03219, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Editing conditional radiance fields

    Steven Liu, Xiuming Zhang, Zhoutong Zhang, Richard Zhang, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Bryan Russell. Editing conditional radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5773–5783,

  21. [29]

    Genn2n: Generative nerf2nerf translation

    Xiangyue Liu, Han Xue, Kunming Luo, Ping Tan, and Li Yi. Genn2n: Generative nerf2nerf translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5105–5114, 2024. 2

    2024

  22. [30]

    Local light field fusion: Practical view syn- thesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view syn- thesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (ToG), 38(4):1–14, 2019. 6, 1

    2019

  23. [31]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  24. [32]

    Spin-nerf: Multiview segmentation and perceptual inpainting with neural radiance 4 fields

    Ashkan Mirzaei, Tristan Aumentado-Armstrong, Konstanti- nos G Derpanis, Jonathan Kelly, Marcus A Brubaker, Igor Gilitschenski, and Alex Levinshtein. Spin-nerf: Multiview segmentation and perceptual inpainting with neural radiance 4 fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer...

  25. [33]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gsedit: Efficient text-guided edit- ing of 3d objects via gaussian splatting

    Francesco Palandra, Andrea Sanchietti, Daniele Baieri, and Emanuele Rodol `a. Gsedit: Efficient text-guided edit- ing of 3d objects via gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05154, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting

    Minghan Qin, Wanhua Li, Jiawei Zhou, Haoqian Wang, and Hanspeter Pfister. Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20051–20060, 2024. 3, 7, 8

    2024

  28. [36]

    Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision. In International Conference on Machine Learning...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Neural volumetric ob- ject selection

    Zhongzheng Ren, Aseem Agarwala, Bryan Russell, Alexan- der G Schwing, and Oliver Wang. Neural volumetric ob- ject selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6133– 6142, 2022. 3, 6, 8, 1

    2022

  30. [38]

    A comparison and evalua- tion of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms

    Steven M Seitz, Brian Curless, James Diebel, Daniel Scharstein, and Richard Szeliski. A comparison and evalua- tion of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 519–528. IEEE, 2006. 4

    2006

  31. [39]

    Spa- tial computing

    Shashi Shekhar, Steven K Feiner, and Walid G Aref. Spa- tial computing. Communications of the ACM, 59(1):72–81,

  32. [40]

    Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d

    Noah Snavely, Steven M Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d. In ACM SIG- GRAPH 2006 Conference Papers, pages 835–846. 2006. 2

    2006

  33. [41]

    Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven manip- ulation of neural radiance fields

    Can Wang, Menglei Chai, Mingming He, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven manip- ulation of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3835–3844, 2022. 2

    2022

  34. [42]

    Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions

    Junjie Wang, Jiemin Fang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Lingxi Xie, and Qi Tian. Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20902–20911, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    A unified framework for 3d scene understanding

    Wei Xu, Chunsheng Shi, Sifan Tu, Xin Zhou, Dingkang Liang, and Xiang Bai. A unified framework for 3d scene understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03263, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Neumesh: Learning disentangled neural mesh-based implicit field for geometry and texture editing

    Bangbang Yang, Chong Bao, Junyi Zeng, Hujun Bao, Yinda Zhang, Zhaopeng Cui, and Guofeng Zhang. Neumesh: Learning disentangled neural mesh-based implicit field for geometry and texture editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 597–614. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    3d-aware scene manipulation via inverse graphics.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    Shunyu Yao, Tzu Ming Hsu, Jun-Yan Zhu, Jiajun Wu, Anto- nio Torralba, Bill Freeman, and Josh Tenenbaum. 3d-aware scene manipulation via inverse graphics.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018. 1

    2018

  38. [46]

    Gaussian grouping: Segment and edit anything in 3d scenes

    Mingqiao Ye, Martin Danelljan, Fisher Yu, and Lei Ke. Gaussian grouping: Segment and edit anything in 3d scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00732, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Omniseg3d: Omniversal 3d segmentation via hierarchical contrastive learning

    Haiyang Ying, Yixuan Yin, Jinzhi Zhang, Fan Wang, Tao Yu, Ruqi Huang, and Lu Fang. Omniseg3d: Omniversal 3d segmentation via hierarchical contrastive learning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20612–20622, 2024. 3

    2024

  40. [48]

    Nerf-editing: geometry editing of neural radiance fields

    Yu-Jie Yuan, Yang-Tian Sun, Yu-Kun Lai, Yuewen Ma, Rongfei Jia, and Lin Gao. Nerf-editing: geometry editing of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18353–18364, 2022. 2

    2022

  41. [49]

    Agile3d: Attention guided interactive multi- object 3d segmentation

    Yuanwen Yue, Sabarinath Mahadevan, Jonas Schult, Francis Engelmann, Bastian Leibe, Konrad Schindler, and Theodora Kontogianni. Agile3d: Attention guided interactive multi- object 3d segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00977 ,

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 586–595, 2018. 5

    2018

  43. [51]

    Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields

    Jingyu Zhuang, Chen Wang, Liang Lin, Lingjie Liu, and Guanbin Li. Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers, pages 1–10, 2023. 2

    2023

  44. [52]

    Vargpt: Unified understanding and generation in a visual autoregressive mul- timodal large language model, 2025

    Xianwei Zhuang, Yuxin Xie, Yufan Deng, Liming Liang, Jinghan Ru, Yuguo Yin, and Yuexian Zou. Vargpt: Unified understanding and generation in a visual autoregressive mul- timodal large language model, 2025. 2

    2025

  45. [53]

    Vasparse: Towards efficient visual halluci- nation mitigation for large vision-language model via visual- aware sparsification, 2025

    Xianwei Zhuang, Zhihong Zhu, Yuxin Xie, Liming Liang, and Yuexian Zou. Vasparse: Towards efficient visual halluci- nation mitigation for large vision-language model via visual- aware sparsification, 2025. 2 5

    2025

Pith tools

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