paper-with-me

Papers

Mind the Gap: Standard 3DGS Evaluation Primarily Measures Near-Trajectory Interpolation

2026-07-02 · Gaoxiang Jia, Vikram Appia arxiv

Standard MipNeRF360-style 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) evaluation holds out every N-th frame -- but these frames have trained neighbors on both sides, so the metric measures near-trajectory interpolation rather than spatial generalization. We introduce a fair matched-count protocol that isolates this effect: both arms train on the same number of images and differ only in whether the holdout is spread evenly (interpolation) or forms a contiguous spatial sector (extrapolation). Our primary finding is a large, consistent interpolation-extrapolation gap of 3~12dB -- several times the differences typically reported between competing methods. The gap is robust to training noise, is in two cases large enough to flip a method ranking under multi-seed confirmation, and -- crucially -- persists across three representation families, including a non-Gaussian volumetric neural radiance field (NeRF), so it reflects spatial coverage rather than any one representation. Diagnostically, it is dominated by a diffuse/geometry-proxy component and tracks each view's angular distance to its nearest training view, a zero-cost signal that also guides capture planning; loss-side regularization yields only marginal gains. Standard holdouts remain useful for near-trajectory rendering but should not, alone, be read as evidence of spatial generalization. Prior work notes protocol sensitivity; ours is, to our knowledge, the first to combine matched-count paired holdout, cross-representation quantification, and a diagnostic analysis Table 1. We describe a spatial-holdout benchmark toolkit with standardized splits and baselines for 16 scenes, which we are preparing for public release.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2607.01556

Code (3)

Tavish9/awesome-daily-AI-arxiv ★ 111
cakerdsp/geometry-vision-daily ★ 2
doublepoints/cv-arxiv-daily

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Measuring Implicit Bias in Explicitly Unbiased Large Language Models

2024-02-06 · Xuechunzi Bai, Angelina Wang, Ilia Sucholutsky, Thomas L. Griffiths

Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit social bias tests but still harbor implicit biases, similar to humans who endorse egalitarian beliefs yet exhibit subtle biases. Measuring such implicit biases can be a chal…

Decision MakingDiagnosticLanguage Modelling

Automatic Speech Verification Spoofing Detection

2020-12-15 · Shentong Mo, Haofan Wang, Pinxu Ren, Ta-Chung Chi

Automatic speech verification (ASV) is the technology to determine the identity of a person based on their voice. While being convenient for identity verification, we should aim for the highest system security standard g…

Can Large Multimodal Models Understand Agricultural Scenes? Benchmarking with AgroMind

2025-05-18 · Qingmei Li, Yang Zhang, Zurong Mai, Yuhang Chen 외

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) has demonstrated capabilities across various domains, but comprehensive benchmarks for agricultural remote sensing (RS) remain scarce. Existing benchmarks designed for agricultural RS scena…

BenchmarkingScene UnderstandingSpatial Reasoning

MindGames: Targeting Theory of Mind in Large Language Models with Dynamic Epistemic Modal Logic

2023-05-05 · Damien Sileo, Antoine Lernould

Theory of Mind (ToM) is a critical component of intelligence but its assessment remains the subject of heated debates. Prior research applied human ToM assessments to natural language processing models using either human…

Epistemic ReasoningLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingMultiple-choice

Language Agnostic Automatic Summarization Evaluation

2020-05-01 · LREC 2020 5 · Christopher Tauchmann, Margot Mieskes

So far work on automatic summarization has dealt primarily with English data. Accordingly, evaluation methods were primarily developed with this language in mind. In our work, we present experiments of adapting available…