Dynamic Point Maps: A Versatile Representation for Dynamic 3D Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DUSt3R has recently shown that one can reduce many tasks in multi-view geometry, including estimating camera intrinsics and extrinsics, reconstructing the scene in 3D, and establishing image correspondences, to the prediction of a pair of viewpoint-invariant point maps, i.e., pixel-aligned point clouds defined in a common reference frame. This formulation is elegant and powerful, but unable to tackle dynamic scenes. To address this challenge, we introduce the concept of Dynamic Point Maps (DPM), extending standard point maps to support 4D tasks such as motion segmentation, scene flow estimation, 3D object tracking, and 2D correspondence. Our key intuition is that, when time is introduced, there are several possible spatial and time references that can be used to define the point maps. We identify a minimal subset of such combinations that can be regressed by a network to solve the sub tasks mentioned above. We train a DPM predictor on a mixture of synthetic and real data and evaluate it across diverse benchmarks for video depth prediction, dynamic point cloud reconstruction, 3D scene flow and object pose tracking, achieving state-of-the-art performance. Code, models and additional results are available at https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/research/dynamic-point-maps/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".