VROOM - Visual Reconstruction over Onboard Multiview

Jathin Korrapati; Tanish Baranwal; Varun Bharadwaj; Yajat Yadav

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 12 references

VROOM - Visual Reconstruction over Onboard Multiview

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cropped, chunked onboard F1 video can partly rebuild a race track in 3D

desk verdict Honest feasibility study: the preprocessing recipe is the real contribution, but the central 'close to ground truth' claim is unquantified and relies on an unspecified alignment step. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17172 v1 pith:EP3F6NVA submitted 2025-08-24 cs.CV cs.LG

Yajat Yadav , Varun Bharadwaj , Jathin Korrapati , Tanish Baranwal This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LG

keywords 3DreconstructionSLAMMonST3RFormula1onboardvideofeed-forwarddepthpreprocessingMonacoGrandPrix

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 claims that a standard feed-forward 4D reconstruction model (MonST3R), when given onboard Formula 1 footage that has been downsampled, masked to hide the stationary car body, and split into five-second chunks at straight sections, can recover the local geometry of a race circuit and the car's trajectory. On the 2023 Monaco Grand Prix footage, each processed segment is reported to closely match the ground-truth track map, while stitching the chunks together drifts too far for the full lap to close the loop. The point is to show that heavy optimization-based SLAM is not the only route: existing learned reconstruction plus careful preprocessing can partially reconstruct a real, high-speed, dynamic outdoor scene. A sympathetic reading is that this demonstrates the feasibility of onboard-video 4D reconstruction, with global consistency left as the unsolved part.

What carries the argument

MonST3R, a feed-forward model that predicts per-frame 3D pointmaps in a common coordinate system from video, is the reconstruction engine. The paper adapts it with three preprocessing choices: masking out the bottom half of the frame to remove the stationary car body, downsampling to 512x144 at 24 FPS to fit memory and compute, and chunking video into overlapping five-second pieces split at straights so turns are not cut across chunks. Chunk-level reconstructions are stitched by transforming extrinsics through the one-frame overlap between chunks.

What would settle it

Take the predicted point cloud for turns 3, 4, and 5, align it to the official Monaco track map using a clearly stated method (e.g., rigid ICP seeded from the track's start line), and report the mean and 95th-percentile distance in meters. If the distances are much larger than the track width, the local-reconstruction claim fails. Alternatively, run the identical pipeline on a circuit with a known second lap and measure whether the loop-closure error is reproducible and grows with path length.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the VROOM pipeline — MonST3R applied to bottom-half-masked, downsampled (512x144 at 24 FPS) onboard video, processed in five-second chunks split at straight sections — partially recovers track geometry and vehicle trajectories for the 2023 Monaco Grand Prix. Each individual chunk's reconstruction is stated to be very close to the ground-truth map (e.g., turns 3, 4, and 5), but the stitched full track does not loop back around, indicating accumulated drift across chunks. The paper also reports that AnyCam failed to recover plausible trajectories even on clean driving sequences, and that DROID-SLAM was abandoned due to visualization and static-scene limitations.

Load-bearing premise

The central evidence — that each chunk's reconstruction is 'very close' to the ground-truth map — rests on an unstated alignment procedure and visual comparison, with no quantitative distance error reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If per-chunk reconstructions are truly close to ground truth, then onboard race footage is a viable input for local 3D track mapping without custom SLAM systems.
The masking of the static car body is a cheap, effective fix that could transfer to any ego-vehicle reconstruction setting where the vehicle is visible in the frame.
Splitting video at straights rather than fixed intervals preserves the context needed to reconstruct curved sections, a preprocessing heuristic that could generalize to other racing or driving data.
The failure to close the loop defines the concrete next problem: global bundle adjustment across chunks or keyframe-based alignment is required before the method can produce a full-circuit map.

Reading between the lines

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

The claim that segments are 'very close to ground truth' depends on an unspecified alignment step; if the comparison involves fitting scale, rotation, and translation to maximize overlap, the reported closeness is partly a property of the fit, not the raw reconstruction. A distance error in meters after an explicitly stated alignment would settle this.
The one-frame overlap stitching is likely too weak a constraint to prevent drift over a 2-mile circuit; a pose-graph formulation with loop closure or global bundle adjustment is the natural extension the paper sketches.
The pipeline's success on Monaco, where walls are close to the car, may not transfer to tracks with open runoff areas and fewer nearby textures; testing on a different circuit would map the method's generality.
If multiple onboard cameras were fused, the paper's own reasoning implies the masking could be dropped entirely, since other views would disambiguate the car from static scene geometry — a testable multi-camera extension.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is an honest, clearly-scoped feasibility study. The paper doesn't claim a new reconstruction model; it shows what existing methods do on F1 onboard footage with hand-tuned preprocessing. The useful bits are real: bottom-half masking to remove the stationary car, chunking at straights so turns stay intact, and downsampling to 512x144 at 24 FPS. Those choices are described well enough to re-implement, the code is linked, and the negative results on AnyCAM are a legitimate reproducibility data point. I give the authors credit for stating plainly that the loop-closure step is unfinished and that the full track does not loop back.

The soft spots are the ones the reader and stress-test flagged, and I think the stress-test is right. The main positive claim—that each segment's reconstruction is "very close to the ground truth map" (Fig. 10)—rests on an overlay with no documented alignment procedure. MonST3R outputs pointmaps in an arbitrary scale and frame, so comparing them to the official track map requires estimating a similarity transform. If that transform was fit to maximize visual overlap, then the closeness is partly manufactured. The paper never states the alignment or reports any distance error. That makes the central evidence non-reproducible, and it's load-bearing because the whole feasibility argument depends on it.

The other issues are secondary but real: there are no numerical metrics anywhere (no ATE, RPE, or point-cloud error), and the preprocessing hyperparameters were tuned on the same video used for the final figures, so overfitting to this one sequence is plausible. These don't sink the paper because the authors are careful to say the reconstruction is partial and that there is significant work left. The conclusion sentence about "scalable 4D reconstruction in real-world settings" is a stretch, though, given the single track, single race, and qualitative evidence.

Who gets value from this? People applying MonST3R or similar models to dynamic, high-speed camera footage, especially for sports broadcast or simulator-type use cases. The paper is a decent practical data point, not a scientific result with measured accuracy. I'd want to see a revised version with a stated alignment procedure, per-chunk distance errors, and ideally a second track or held-out sequence before treating the feasibility claim as established. For a workshop or short-paper venue, it deserves referee time; for a top conference, the missing evaluation would be a desk-reject-level gap. My recommendation: send it to review only after the authors add quantitative evaluation and specify the alignment.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VROOM, a preprocessing and reconstruction pipeline for recovering 3D track geometry and vehicle trajectory from monocular onboard Formula 1 footage. Using 2023 Monaco Grand Prix onboard videos, the pipeline downsamples video to 512x144 at 24 FPS, applies a bottom-half masking heuristic, chunks the video into approximately 5-second overlapping segments that are split on straight sections, and runs MonST3R per chunk. Per-chunk reconstructions are stitched by using one-frame overlaps to align camera extrinsics. The authors compare three methods—DROID-SLAM, AnyCAM, and MonST3R—and report that MonST3R gives the best results. They qualitatively show that individual chunk reconstructions are 'very close' to the track map (Fig. 10), while the full stitched track fails to close the loop (Fig. 9). The manuscript openly states that a cross-chunk global bundle adjustment step was not completed. The paper includes a project page and code repository.

Significance. If the local reconstruction claim is validated, the paper demonstrates a practical preprocessing recipe that makes an existing feed-forward dynamic-scene reconstruction model (MonST3R) usable on challenging onboard F1 footage. The authors are transparent about the unfinished loop-closure step and about the exploratory nature of the masking and chunking choices; they also release code and a project page, which are strengths. However, the central evidence is qualitative and rests on an unspecified alignment between MonST3R's scale-ambiguous pointmaps and the reference track map. No numerical metric (e.g., ATE, RPE, or point-cloud error) is reported anywhere, and all preprocessing hyperparameters were tuned on the same test video. The stated feasibility claim is therefore plausible but not yet adequately supported. The stress-test concern about Fig. 10's unverifiable alignment is a real and load-bearing issue, not a peripheral one.

major comments (4)

[§4.2, Fig. 10] The claim that each individual segment's reconstruction is 'very close to the ground truth map' is not reproducible because the alignment between MonST3R's output and the track map is unspecified. MonST3R outputs pointmaps in an arbitrary reference frame with unknown scale; overlaying them with an external map requires estimating a similarity transform (scale, rotation, translation). The paper does not state how this transform was obtained or report any post-alignment distance error. If the transform was fit to maximize visual overlap, 'very close' is partly an artifact of the fit. Since this is the central positive result, please specify the alignment method concretely and report numerical error, e.g., point-to-track-centerline distance after alignment, or ATE/RPE for the camera trajectory.
[§3.2, §4] All preprocessing hyperparameters (bottom-half mask fraction, chunk length and overlap, downsampled resolution 512x144, 24 FPS, and the 12 FPS lower bound) were selected by experimentation on the same footage used for the final qualitative evaluation. Section 3.2.1 states the choices were made 'by testing against several, short 5 second chunks of the original video.' This introduces overfitting risk: the apparent success in Fig. 10 may depend on choices that do not transfer to other laps, circuits, or camera mounts. Please add a sensitivity analysis for at least the mask fraction and chunk length, or validate on an unseen onboard sequence, to support the claim of feasibility beyond this single video.
[§4 (overall)] The manuscript contains no quantitative evaluation. There is no ATE/RPE for the camera trajectory, no point-cloud error against a reference model, and no quantitative comparison among DROID-SLAM, AnyCAM, and MonST3R. Even for a feasibility study, a single numerical measure (e.g., trajectory error after alignment, or fraction of track centerline reconstructed within a threshold) is necessary to substantiate 'partial recover[y] of track and vehicle trajectories.' The absence of metrics also prevents other researchers from comparing against this work. Please add at least one objective error metric, and ideally report it for each test chunk as well as for the stitched trajectory.
[§3.3.3] The stitching procedure is described only as 'utilized the overlap between chunks in order to transform one chunk’s camera extrinsics into another camera’s reference frame.' Because each MonST3R chunk is scale-ambiguous and the overlap is only 1 frame, it is unclear how the similarity transform is computed, how scale is propagated across chunks, and how drift is accumulated. This is load-bearing for the claimed 'single camera trajectory' and for the full track reconstruction in Fig. 9. Please provide the exact algorithm (e.g., Umeyama alignment on common points, or pose graph optimization), or state explicitly that the current stitching is a simple frame-to-frame transform and that this is a known limitation.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] Spelling is inconsistent: 'Monst3r' and 'MonST3R' are used interchangeably (e.g., abstract vs. §3.3.3). 'Monaca' should be 'Monaco' in §5. Fix these before final submission.
[§1.1] The phrase 'the second sector s (turns 5-12)' has a stray 's'. Also, the text says each video is 'about 80 seconds long,' but later refers to 'the first lap' and 'the entire race'; clarify which portion of the race is used and how the 20 onboard videos are sampled.
[§3.2.2] Figure 4 and Figure 5 captions are terse ('Masking Car', 'Masking Bottom Half'). Please describe what each mask covers and the exact pixel-region operation used.
[§3.2.4] The description of 'smarter chunking' (splitting only on straight segments) is qualitative. How is a 'straight' detected? State the criterion (e.g., steering angle threshold, track map knowledge, or manual annotation), since this is a key preprocessing step.
[§4.2] The failure case in Appendix A (Turn 15+16) is mentioned but not discussed in the main text. A brief analysis of why this segment fails would strengthen the paper's honest reporting of limitations.
[References] Reference [2] is given as 'Dust3r: Dual-scale transformer for sparse-to-dense matching' but the first author name is 'Qianqian Chen' and the title appears incomplete; verify all citations against the original publications. Also, reference [5] says 'to appear'—update if a final venue exists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pipeline outputs come from a third-party model (MonST3R) and are compared against an external track map; preprocessing choices are engineering tuning, not fitted parameters presented as predictions.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The central outputs are produced by MonST3R, a third-party published method cited as external prior work, and the ground-truth comparison is an externally supplied F1 track map. No equation in the paper defines a quantity in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The preprocessing choices (downsampling to 512x144 at 24 FPS, bottom-half masking, 5-second chunking at straights) were selected by experimentation on the same footage, which is a potential overfitting / data-leakage concern, but those choices do not statistically force the qualitative MonST3R reconstruction; the reconstruction itself is produced by an independently trained network. The paper honestly acknowledges the loop-closure failure (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 9) and the unfinished global bundle adjustment, which further indicates the authors are not presenting a forced success. The main weakness is that the 'very close to the ground truth map' claim in Sec. 4.2 / Fig. 10 lacks a stated alignment procedure and quantitative error metric; MonST3R pointmaps are scale-ambiguous, so the overlay could in principle be chosen to maximize visual similarity. That is a reproducibility and measurement-validity concern, not a circularity concern, because the comparison is not claimed to be derived from the ground truth. There are also no self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-via-citation moves in the paper. Under the hard rules, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

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

The central claim rests on hand-tuned preprocessing hyperparameters, the out-of-the-box behavior of a third-party model, an uncalibrated camera assumption, and an unstated ground-truth source. None of these is a fitted law or derived quantity; they are engineering assumptions the reader must accept to trust the qualitative results.

free parameters (4)

Bottom-half mask fraction = 0.5
Erasing the bottom 50% of each frame removes the stationary car; chosen by visual comparison against top-30%, top-50%, and car-only masks (Sec 3.2.2). Results depend on this choice.
Chunk length and overlap = ~5 s, 1 frame overlap
Set 'after some experimentation' (Sec 3.2.3) to keep 24 FPS while bounding compute; chunks are further restricted to start and end on straights (Sec 3.2.4).
Downsampled resolution and FPS = 512x144, 24 FPS
Reduced from 1280x720@50 to meet compute limits; the claim that quality impact is 'marginal' is supported only by informal tests on 5 s chunks with no reported metric (Sec 3.2.1).
Minimum FPS bound = 12 FPS
Below 12 FPS reconstruction was 'terrible' (Sec 3.2.3); this threshold was discovered on the target video itself.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption MonST3R's pretrained weights transfer to F1 onboard footage without fine-tuning
The whole pipeline (Sec 3.3.3) depends on the cited model's geometry estimates being valid under extreme ego-motion, motion blur, and atypical camera mounting.
domain assumption The onboard camera can be treated under MonST3R's uncalibrated camera assumption
No camera calibration or distortion model is applied (Sec 3.3.3).
domain assumption The external Monaco circuit map used as ground truth is accurate
Figures 8 and 10 compare reconstructions against an unstated source of the track map.
domain assumption Stitching chunks through a single overlapping frame accumulates negligible error
Sec 3.3.3 uses 1-frame overlap to chain chunk coordinate frames; the paper later concedes 'drift-off error' between distant chunks, weakening this premise.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VROOM - Visual Reconstruction over Onboard Multiview." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EP3F6NVA

@misc{pith2026250817172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VROOM - Visual Reconstruction over Onboard Multiview},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EP3F6NVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17172}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce VROOM, a system for reconstructing 3D models of Formula 1 circuits using only onboard camera footage from racecars. Leveraging video data from the 2023 Monaco Grand Prix, we address video challenges such as high-speed motion and sharp cuts in camera frames. Our pipeline analyzes different methods such as DROID-SLAM, AnyCam, and Monst3r and combines preprocessing techniques such as different methods of masking, temporal chunking, and resolution scaling to account for dynamic motion and computational constraints. We show that Vroom is able to partially recover track and vehicle trajectories in complex environments. These findings indicate the feasibility of using onboard video for scalable 4D reconstruction in real-world settings. The project page can be found at https://varun-bharadwaj.github.io/vroom, and our code is available at https://github.com/yajatyadav/vroom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.17172 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Monaco Track Layout of the closer distance between the moving objects and the camera. Furthermore, the Monaco track has a lot of tight twists and turns, especially in the second sector s (turns 5- 12), really testing how well the model learns the 3-D reconstruction from the images. 1.2. SLAM Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) is a key part in many robotic and autonomous systems, which requires the system … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Racing Line 1.3. 3D Reconstruction Along with SLAM, we perform a 3-D reconstruction to create a dense 3-D point cloud of the entire track. To do this we combine the depth maps + estimated position-wise point cloud from the SLAM outputs along with the estimated camera extrinsics. This dense 3-D reconstruction can be combined with the estimated point clouds from all other onboard cameras to develop a 3-D reconstructi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Masking Bottom Half 3.2.3 Video Chunking Finally, because we were limited by our compute, we had a tradeoff between feeding longer videos at the expense of lower FPS in the various methods we tried. With experimentation, we found lowering the FPS too much (lower than …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Poor Track reconstruction with 3 FPS 4. Results 4.1. AnyCAM We found that AnyCAM was not a robust SLAM solution in practice. It performed poorly not only on our F1 dataset, but also on dashcam-style footage resembling the examples presented in the original paper. Desp…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Predicted Camera Motion by AnyCam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Full Track Reconstruction using Monst3r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...
[2]

Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam

Carlos Campos, Rafael Elvira, Juan J Gómez Rodríguez, JMM Montiel, and JD Tardós. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 37(6):1874--1890, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Dust3r: Dual-scale transformer for sparse-to-dense matching

Qianqian Chen, Yida Wang, and Yebin Zhang. Dust3r: Dual-scale transformer for sparse-to-dense matching. In CVPR , 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Lsd-slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam

Jakob Engel, Thomas Schöps, and Daniel Cremers. Lsd-slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam. In ECCV , pages 834--849, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization

Alex Kendall, Matthew Grimes, and Roberto Cipolla. Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization. In ICCV , pages 2938--2946, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Megasam: Accurate, fast and robust structure and motion from casual dynamic videos

Jiarong Li, Tianyuan Shen, Xiaowei Zhou, and Marc Pollefeys. Megasam: Accurate, fast and robust structure and motion from casual dynamic videos. In CVPR , 2024. to appear

work page 2024
[7]

Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system

Raul Mur-Artal, JMM Montiel, and JD Tardos. Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system. In IEEE Transactions on Robotics , volume 31, pages 1147--1163, 2015

work page 2015
[8]

Improved Capacity Outer Bound for Private Quadratic Monomial Computation

Nicola Piccinelli, Gabriel Baatz, and Arno Knapitsch. Unik3d: Universal camera monocular 3d estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06125 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 12 references

[9]

Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In ECCV , pages 402--419, 2020

2020
[10]

Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras

Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. In NeurIPS , 2021

2021
[11]

Monst3r: A simple approach for estimating geometry in the presence of motion

Yida Wang, Qianqian Chen, Wei Chen, Yu Zhang, and Yebin Zhang. Monst3r: A simple approach for estimating geometry in the presence of motion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04974 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video

Tinghui Zhou, Matthew Brown, Noah Snavely, and David G Lowe. Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video. In CVPR , pages 1851--1858, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

[2] [2]

Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam

Carlos Campos, Rafael Elvira, Juan J Gómez Rodríguez, JMM Montiel, and JD Tardós. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 37(6):1874--1890, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Dust3r: Dual-scale transformer for sparse-to-dense matching

Qianqian Chen, Yida Wang, and Yebin Zhang. Dust3r: Dual-scale transformer for sparse-to-dense matching. In CVPR , 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Lsd-slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam

Jakob Engel, Thomas Schöps, and Daniel Cremers. Lsd-slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam. In ECCV , pages 834--849, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization

Alex Kendall, Matthew Grimes, and Roberto Cipolla. Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization. In ICCV , pages 2938--2946, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Megasam: Accurate, fast and robust structure and motion from casual dynamic videos

Jiarong Li, Tianyuan Shen, Xiaowei Zhou, and Marc Pollefeys. Megasam: Accurate, fast and robust structure and motion from casual dynamic videos. In CVPR , 2024. to appear

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system

Raul Mur-Artal, JMM Montiel, and JD Tardos. Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system. In IEEE Transactions on Robotics , volume 31, pages 1147--1163, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Improved Capacity Outer Bound for Private Quadratic Monomial Computation

Nicola Piccinelli, Gabriel Baatz, and Arno Knapitsch. Unik3d: Universal camera monocular 3d estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06125 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025