Sparse-view Pose Estimation and Reconstruction via Analysis by Generative Synthesis

Inferring the 3D structure underlying a set of multi-view images typically requires solving two co-dependent tasks -- accurate 3D reconstruction requires precise camera poses, and predicting camera poses relies on (implicitly or explicitly) modeling the underlying 3D. The classical framework of analysis by synthesis casts this inference as a joint optimization seeking to explain the observed pixels, and recent instantiations learn expressive 3D representations (e.g., Neural Fields) with gradient-descent-based pose refinement of initial pose estimates. However, given a sparse set of observed views, the observations may not provide sufficient direct evidence to obtain complete and accurate 3D. Moreover, large errors in pose estimation may not be easily corrected and can further degrade the inferred 3D. To allow robust 3D reconstruction and pose estimation in this challenging setup, we propose SparseAGS, a method that adapts this analysis-by-synthesis approach by: a) including novel-view-synthesis-based generative priors in conjunction with photometric objectives to improve the quality of the inferred 3D, and b) explicitly reasoning about outliers and using a discrete search with a continuous optimization-based strategy to correct them. We validate our framework across real-world and synthetic datasets in combination with several off-the-shelf pose estimation systems as initialization. We find that it significantly improves the base systems' pose accuracy while yielding high-quality 3D reconstructions that outperform the results from current multi-view reconstruction baselines.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer XaBT6/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-09

Summary

The paper introduces a novel optimization-based method for sparse-view 3D reconstruction from unposed images. The method uses off-the-shelf pose estimator to get pose initialization, then it uses rendering loss and generative priors to optimize the pose and 3D reconstruction. In detail, the generative priors involve a multi-view SDS loss on generated novel views using Zero123. The method demonstrates satisfying results on the evaluation data, and the ablation study shows the effectiveness of each proposed technique.

Strengths

- Good performance. The reconstruction quality and pose estimation accuracy are satisfying. - The paper is well-written and is easy to follow. - The idea of rejecting images with large pose error is interesting. - The technical part of the paper is solid.

Weaknesses

- Missing baseline. For the reconstruction methods, the only baseline is LEAP, which is a feedforward method. In contrast, the proposed method is an optimization-based method, which introduces pose-processing to estimated poses. I would suggest adding baseline of SPARF [1] and using the same pose initialization. Moreover, why not comparing with UpFusion? - Unknown inference speed. Will the joint optimization of pose and shape be slow? Could you provide a analysis of inference time? - Related work. One related work is iFusion [2], which uses generative priors for pose estimation and is very relevant to the philosophy of the proposed method. Another related work is FORGE [3], which introduces pose optimization for sparse view reconstruction. Moreover, the authors should discuss the prior sparse-view reconstruction from unposed images works with more details, the authors should provide more comparison and contrast with prior work. The current discussion is too short (Line 90-92). - Ablation study. The ablation study is performed with the Ray Diffusion pose initialization. How will it look like using Dust3r initialization? This is important as the ablation should be performed with the best base model. [1] Truong, Prune, et al. "Sparf: Neural radiance fields from sparse and noisy poses." CVPR 2023. [2] Wu, Chin-Hsuan et al. “iFusion: Inverting Diffusion for Pose-Free Reconstruction from Sparse Views.” ArXiv 2023. [3] Jiang, Hanwen et al. “Few-View Object Reconstruction with Unknown Categories and Camera Poses.” 3DV 2024.

Questions

- The introduction spends a lot space discussing the chicken-and-egg problem of pose estimation and reconstruction. However, I don't think it is quite related to the technical part, as the proposed method still need pose initialization using off-the-shelf methods. The method doesn't provide a novel perspective regarding how to solve the chicken-and-egg problem, and using pose initialization is quite common in prior works, e.g., SPARF, FORGE, and FvOR or even traditional SfM methods. Why the authors want to emphasize this? - Is it possible to evaluate the outlier removal method? For example, the authors can evaluate the correlation between the removal and the pose error. If the proposed method works well, they should have strong correlations. Moreover, it will be good to provide any statistics on the outlier removal method, e.g., how many images are removed in average.

Rating

6

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Please see weaknesses and questions.

Reviewer mujy6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-10

Summary

This paper proposes a framework for joint 3D reconstruction and pose refinement. Specifically, given estimated camera poses from off-the-shelf models, the proposed method first leverages diffusion priors and rendering loss for 3D reconstruction. The 3D reconstruction is further used to refine the current pose parameters. The 3D reconstruction and pose refinement are conducted in an alternative way. An outlier identification and correction strategy is also introduced to make full use of the given image while mitigating the adverse effect of noisy camera estimations at the same time. Experimental comparison with several pose estimation baselines shows that the proposed method can refine inaccurate pose estimation effectively.

Strengths

1. The paper tackles a practical problem in real-world scenarios, where ground truth camera poses are not always available. 2. The proposed method is shown to be effective when applying to different pose estimation baselines. 3. The proposed outlier removal and correction is effective from the ablation study results in Table 4.

Weaknesses

1. The proposed method is compared with SPARF only in the setting of using pose from different pose estimation baselines. However, it would be more convincing to also present the results using the same setting of SPARF, which adds noise into the GT camera pose. This will be a direct comparison with SPARF’s original results reported in their paper. 2. The proposed method is compared with LEAP for 3D reconstruction results. However, the comparison is a bit unfair since LEAP does not require any initial camera poses. 3. The description of how to effectively detect the outliers (line 212 - line 214) is not very clear. Similarly, the procedure of how to correct the outlier poses (line 223 - line 225) is not very clear either. How the MSE and LPIPS are computed and compared since there is no correspondence?

Questions

1. The proposed method is evaluated on the NAVI dataset. It seems that the dataset is quite simple as shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The reviewer is wondering about the performance of the proposed method on more complex scenes? 2. The reviewer is wondering about the separate ablation results on the outlier removal and correction.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

Limitations are addressed in the paper.

Reviewer uJqP6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper proposes a method for the joint reconstruction of camera poses and 3D objects given sparse input views. The core idea is to use a pose-conditioned diffusion model (Zero-123) as a prior, impose the SDS loss, and jointly optimize the poses and objects, similar to the approach in ID-pose. To improve the robustness and quality of the optimization, the authors made several modifications: (1) Using a 6 DoF pose-conditioned diffusion model instead of a 3 DoF model. (2) Adding strategies for outlier detection and correction. (Although somewhat empirical, it proves effective.) This approach requires initial camera poses (from methods such as RelPose++, RayDiffusion, etc.) and is not capable of reconstructing poses from scratch (e.g., purely random camera poses). Experimental results demonstrate that, compared to SPARF and ID-pose, the proposed method achieves better pose estimation quality. Additionally, it provides better object reconstruction in terms of novel view synthesis quality compared to LEAP.

Strengths

(1) The approach is technically sound, and I believe the reported results are reproducible. (2) The reconstructed results look good and represent the state-of-the-art in object-level pose-free reconstruction. (3) The paper is well-written, making it easy to read and understand.

Weaknesses

(1) This optimization-based method requires more time compared to a feed-forward model, taking about 5-10 minutes. Additionally, the writing discussing this aspect is somewhat unclear: the paper states, “with increased inference time depending on the number of outliers.” Could this statement be more specific? How much does the time increase with the number of outliers? The correction of outliers may be time-consuming as it requires dense searches of initial camera poses. (2) (Minor) The method focuses only on object-level reconstruction, which makes the scope seem narrow. (3) The authors do not sufficiently discuss experiments in a more “standard” sparse-view setting, such as using 3 or 4 views. The reported experiments use at least 6 views, which is not a particularly small number.

Questions

(1) A related work is lacking in discussion: Sun, Yujing, et al. "Extreme Two-View Geometry From Object Poses with Diffusion Models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02800 (2024). (2) Is the testing data included in the training set for fine-tuning the 6-DoF diffusion model?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

As discussed in the weakness.

Reviewer ePgG6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-14

Summary

This paper presents a method named MV-DreamGaussian for tackling the problem of 3D reconstruction from sparse multi-view inputs. In particular, the paper extends the DreamGaussian work to use multi-view images as the inputs and proposes a scheme to optimize the inaccurate camera poses of the multi-view images.

Strengths

- This paper is well written and I can follow smoothly. - The authors proposed a finetuned version of Zero-1-to-3 with 6 DoF camera parametrization which shows an advantage over 3 DoF camera parameterization in the original paper. - The proposed pose refinement scheme is novel and very effective according to the authors' experiments compared with SPARF as well as the ablation study which shows that adding the proposed pose refinement improves the pose accuracy and reconstruction quality significantly. The design of the outlier removal based on photometric error ranking and discrete search is empirical but works quite well.

Weaknesses

- This paper presents very limited novelty in the reconstruction part with a trivial extension to DreamGaussian to use multi-view images, which is already implemented in a public repository [stable-dreamfusion](https://github.com/ashawkey/stable-dreamfusion). - The major weakness of the paper is the lack of fair comparisons in terms of the 3D reconstruction. The authors only compared with LEAP for the 3D reconstruction. However, LEAP is a work that **does not require any pose inputs**, whereas the proposed work needs relatively good pose initialization (e.g., Dust3r) and conduct refinement on it. In addition, the underlying 3D representation is different, too: LEAP uses NeRF while the proposed work uses 3D Gaussian. I'm confused as to why the authors did not compare with SPARF for the reconstruction quality too since SPARF shares the same input setup as the proposed work. Besides, the very recent work DMV3D would also be a good method to compare with.

Questions

- I'm quite curious what the reconstruction quality the method can achieve without 3D generative prior but with the proposed refinement. Namely the combination of (1) and (4) in Table 4. - How are the poses used for generative prior sampled in addition to the input views? - How are the thresholds for pose outlier removal tuned?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors have discussed the limitations of the paper and I generally agree with them.

Reviewer XaBT2024-08-08

Thanks for the detailed reply! The rebuttal resolves most of my concerns. I would like to raise the score of this paper. Before that, I have a last question. I noticed that in the reply to Reviewer mujy, with using SPARF, the pose error becomes larger, which is counter-intuitive. Could the authors provide more insight into this? Is there any problem with the estimated correspondence, e.g. does the object-centric image makes the correspondence fail? If so, is it reasonable to use images with original background as the input of SPARF, and after rendering the novel views, we use foreground segmentation to evaluate the NVS metrics?

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

We would like to thank the reviewer for the prompt response and the willingness to raise our score! Yes, we indeed found that correspondence is crucial for SPARF's pose optimization, and we observed that SPARF often fails to obtain reliable correspondence in our experiments. In **Fig. 3** of our rebuttal PDF file, we included an example where false estimated correspondence makes SPARF's pose estimation fail, and therefore, it produced degraded novel views. To demonstrate the influence of foreground masks on correspondence (which is reflected by pose accuracy), we present a comparison of SPARF with and without using masks below. | N=8 | Avg Rot Error | Rot@5° | Rot@15° | CC@10% | Improvement Rate | | :--------------- | :------------ | :----- | :------ | :----- | :--------------- | | DUSt3R | 8.71 | 51.6 | 92.9 | 79.5 | / | | SPARF (w/ mask) | 18.17 | 57.3 | 75.7 | 68.6 | 0.54 | | SPARF (w/o mask) | 10.10 | 58.1 | 85.9 | 81.2 | 0.59 | | Ours | 5.99 | 81.7 | 95.3 | 92.5 | 0.93 | While including background did improve SPARF's pose accuracy, it failed to improve the average rotation error and Rot@15° over the baseline as the w/ mask setting did. Even in this setup, we still observed false estimated correspondence used by SPARF, which may cause large pose errors. Given these results, we may attribute the SPARF's counter-intuitive performance more to the distribution of NAVI data instead of the use of masks. In NAVI, images have limited overlap, making it inherently hard to find reliable correspondence. This differs significantly from SPARF's testing data in the original paper, which may show notable overlaps and a strong forward-facing feature (e.g., the DTU dataset). In our General Response, we also tried to compare novel view synthesis with SPARF despite differences in pose accuracy by introducing `*PSNR` and `*LPIPS`. We used these metrics to factor out the negative influence of failure pose optimization on SPARF due to unavailable/false correspondence. We refer the reviewer to our General Response for more details! We hope this could address the reviewer's concern regarding the influence of masks (and thus the influence of pose accuracy) on NVS. Finally, we would like to clarify an implementation detail relevant to the reviewer’s question: in the original submission, when reporting pose error, we did give SPARF access to the background as it gave stronger results. Unfortunately, for NVS experiments, this was not trivial as it would require post-processing to remove background from the renderings before comparing NVS metrics, so we gave it images w/o background. Although this may be slightly suboptimal, we hope that our `*PSNR` and `*LPIPS` (which explicitly focus on sequences where SPARF improved pose, thus minimizing the effect of sequences where SPARF was not robust) make it clear that our system does outperform SPARF.

Reviewer XaBT2024-08-09

Thanks for the reply. The response makes sense to me. I will raise my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

We are glad to see that the reviewer's concerns were resolved, and we will update our paper based on our discussion with the reviewer.

Reviewer ePgG2024-08-09

Thanks for the detailed reply. The authors' response addressed my major concerns about the evaluation and I decided to raise my rating to acceptance.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

We greatly appreciate the reviewer for raising the score! We will carefully revise our paper based on the reviewer’s valuable feedback. Thank you again for providing such insightful comments!

Reviewer mujy2024-08-13

Thanks for the authors' detailed responses. Most of my concerns are resolved in the rebuttal. For the comparison on 3D reconstruction, it would be more convincing to compare under the same condition, namely based on an initial pose. However, LEAP is not using pose information, hence putting LEAF at disadvantage for the comparison.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Dear Reviewer, Thanks for the feedback. We believe there are two schools of thought for developing approaches for sparse-view-3D in-the-wild: a) methods that side-step explicit pose estimation (e.g. LEAP, UpFusion), and b) methods that rely on and improve initial pose estimation (e.g. SPARF and ours). We do already include a comparison to SPARF as a baseline that also uses the same initial poses to show that for methods following ideology (b), our work improves over the current SOTA. Regarding the comparison to LEAP, we certainly agree that LEAP not using poses is perhaps a reason why it is not competitive -- but this is exactly the point we wish to make! In particular, we hope that one key take-away for a reader is that methods following ideology (a) are limited in their performance. Based on their comments, this maybe something the reviewer feels is obvious, but this is not universally agreed! For example, LEAP positions itself as ‘liberating’ sparse-view 3D reconstruction from a dependence on pose estimation and even begins the abstract with a question that “Are camera poses necessary for multi-view 3D modeling?” and argues that they are not needed (UpFusion also follows a similar philosophy). Our comparison to LEAP (and the added comparison to UpFusion in response to Reviewer XaBT) seeks to make the counterpoint that “Actually, such poses are indeed helpful!”. We would be happy to present the results with this context more clearly outlined in the text if the reviewer feels that maybe helpful.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC