Organizations: Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China · School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Independent Researcher · Xiong’an Aerospace Information Research Institute, Xiong’an, China · State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science Peking University, Beijing, China
Recent advancements in neural surface reconstruction have significantly enhanced 3D reconstruction. However, current real world datasets mainly focus on benchmarking multiview stereo (MVS) based on RGB inputs. Multiview photometric stereo (MVPS) and multiview shape from polarization (MVSfP), though indispensable on high-fidelity surface reconstruction and sparse inputs, have not been quantitatively assessed together with MVS. To determine the working range of different MVX (MVS, MVSfP, and MVPS) techniques, we propose EvalMVX, a real-world dataset containing 25 objects, each captured with a polarized camera under 20 varying views and 17 light conditions including OLAT and natural illumination, leading to 8,500 images. Each object includes aligned ground-truth 3D mesh, facilitating quantitative benchmarking of MVX methods simultaneously. Based on our EvalMVX, we evaluate 13 MVX methods published in recent years, record the best-performing methods, and identify open problems under diverse geometric details and reflectance types. We hope EvalMVX and the benchmarking results can inspire future research on multiview 3D reconstruction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Dataset overview. EvalMVX contains 25 objects (left), covering diverse shapes and materials. From top to bottom, the materials range from simple diffuse to complex metallic and reflective ones, while the complexity of object shapes increases from left to right. With aligned GT shapes (middle), we can quantitatively evaluate MVX methods on the same object (right) and reveal their performance on detailed shape recovery and robustness against complex material.
Dataset
EvalMVS
EvalMVPS
EvalMVSfP
3D GT
#Objects
#Lights
#Views
DTU [ 18 ]
✓
×
×
Point cloud
80
1/7 Env. a
49 ∼ 64
Mobilebrick [ 24 ]
✓
×
×
Mesh
153
1 Env.
30 ∼ 134
Stanford-ORB [ 22 ]
✓
×
×
Mesh
14
3/7 Env.
70
Objects with Lighting [ 36 ]
✓
×
×
None
8
3/72 Env.
42 ∼ 67
CO3D [ 33 ]
✓
×
×
Point cloud
19K
Env. (Case dependent)
Case dependent
MVImageNet [ 46 ]
✓
×
×
None
220K
Env. (Case dependent)
Case dependent
Table 1: Summary of MVX datasets and their contents.
Figure 2: Capture setup and data processing of EvalMVX. ( Top ) Our capture system contains a polarization camera and 16 evenly distributed LEDs for recording multiview and multi-light images. ( Bottom ) Polarization information can be extracted from the snapshot polarization image.
Method
MVS
MVPS
MVSfP
NeuS2 [ 40 ]
NeRO [ 29 ]
PET-NeuS [ 41 ]
GaussianSurfels [ 9 ]
RnbNeuS [ 3 ]
SuperNormal [ 6 ]
VMINer [ 11 ]
WildLight [ 8 ]
MVAS [ 4 ]
NeRSP [ 14 ]
PISR [ 7 ]
Face
0.234
0.411
0.303
0.540
0.614
0.277
0.400
0.250
0.389
0.330
0.308
Pig
0.312
0.282
0.408
0.720
0.379
0.256
0.470
0.265
0.446
0.447
0.286
Owl1
0.327
0.306
0.360
0.636
0.443
0.288
0.319
0.342
0.354
0.371
0.423
Monkey
0.487
0.345
0.664
0.646
0.393
0.325
0.530
0.335
0.365
0.501
0.311
Owl2
0.383
0.321
0.393
0.639
0.504
0.300
0.415
0.377
0.444
0.405
0.390
Table 2: Benchmark results on EvalMVX measured by CD in millimeter over 25 objects, where the smallest and second smallest CD values are shown in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 3: Inaccurate surface normal inputs from Uni-MS-PS [ 15 ] due to complex reflectance influence the shape recovery from SuperNormal [ 6 ] .
Figure 4: The difference between the real-captured AoP map and azimuth map due to sensor noise degrades the performance of MVSfP methods.
Figure 5: Best-performing method for each object in EvalMVX, with CD displayed in brackets. Summary results shown in left and right correspond to using 20 and 10 input views.
Figure 6: Visualization of accuracy and efficiency across different methods.
Figure 8: ( Left ) Distribution of camera poses. ( Right ) Relative positions between the LEDs and camera.
Object
Resolution
Per-view Optimization Time
Average IoU
Pig
153×128 → 1224×1024
6s → 2min
0.9910 → 0.9917
Cambodia
153×128 → 1224×1024
30s → 20min
0.9882 → 0.9891
Table 3: Comparison of mesh alignment under different resolutions.
Figure 9: ( Left ) We align scanned mesh to camera views guided by GT masks. ( Right ) Curvature distribution of EvalMVX calculated from GT normals quantifies the shape complexity of each object.
Method
MVS
MVPS
MVSfP
NeuS2 [ 40 ]
NeRO [ 29 ]
PET-NeuS [ 41 ]
GaussianSurfels [ 9 ]
RnbNeuS [ 3 ]
SuperNormal [ 6 ]
VMINer [ 11 ]
WildLight [ 8 ]
MVAS [ 4 ]
NeRSP [ 14 ]
PISR [ 7 ]
Face
0.254
0.281
0.303
0.670
0.541
0.260
0.370
0.366
0.420
0.588
0.396
Pig
0.324
0.279
0.461
0.705
0.386
0.254
0.456
0.360
0.498
0.424
0.355
Owl1
0.352
0.335
0.423
0.759
0.424
0.312
0.541
0.532
0.419
0.424
0.439
Monkey
0.561
0.346
0.698
0.736
0.425
0.308
0.457
0.441
0.428
0.514
0.337
Owl2
0.391
0.410
0.478
0.725
0.503
0.315
0.614
0.513
0.552
0.490
0.444
Table 4: Benchmark results on EvalMVX with 10 views - CD evaluation in millimeter over all 25 objects, where the smallest and second smallest ones are shown in bold and underlined, respectively.
Method
MVS
MVPS
MVSfP
NeuS2 [ 40 ]
NeRO [ 29 ]
PET-NeuS [ 41 ]
GaussianSurfels [ 9 ]
RnbNeuS [ 3 ]
SuperNormal [ 6 ]
VMINer [ 11 ]
WildLight [ 8 ]
MVAS [ 4 ]
NeRSP [ 14 ]
PISR [ 7 ]
Face
5.96
3.36
4.88
12.32
4.19
2.22
6.92
3.95
8.09
7.52
14.98
Pig
9.57
4.58
8.84
16.53
5.62
4.15
9.40
5.06
8.86
9.60
8.69
Owl1
7.71
5.17
12.84
12.90
5.46
3.35
7.28
7.00
6.58
7.51
9.51
Monkey
16.64
5.62
25.82
18.51
6.20
4.41
17.89
7.08
8.42
13.05
7.60
Owl2
12.35
6.36
11.90
17.73
7.24
3.98
10.64
9.16
9.97
10.28
11.15
Table 5: Benchmark results on EvalMVX- MAE evaluation in degree over all 25 objects, where the smallest and second smallest ones are shown in bold and underlined, respectively.
Method
MVS
MVPS
MVSfP
NeuS [ 39 ]
NeDUF [ 28 ]
NeuS2 [ 40 ]
NeRO [ 29 ]
PET-NeuS [ 41 ]
GaussianSurfels [ 9 ]
RnbNeuS [ 3 ]
SuperNormal [ 6 ]
VMINer [ 11 ]
WildLight [ 8 ]
MVAS [ 4 ]
NeRSP [ 14 ]
PISR [ 7 ]
Face
0.314
0.267
0.234
0.411
0.303
0.540
0.614
0.277
0.400
0.250
0.389
0.330
0.308
Pig
0.292
0.343
0.312
0.282
0.408
0.720
0.379
0.256
0.470
0.265
0.446
0.447
0.286
Owl1
0.306
0.413
0.327
0.306
0.360
0.636
0.443
0.288
0.319
0.342
0.354
0.371
0.423
Monkey
0.548
0.862
0.487
0.345
0.664
0.646
0.393
0.325
0.530
0.335
0.365
0.501
0.311
Owl2
0.319
0.392
0.383
0.321
0.393
0.639
0.504
0.300
0.415
0.377
0.444
0.405
0.390
Table 6: Extended benchmark results on EvalMVX, including the additional NeuS [ 39 ] and NeDUF [ 28 ] results.
Figure 10: Recovered shapes and error maps of Face .
Figure 11: Recovered shapes and error maps of Pig .
Figure 12: Recovered shapes and error maps of Owl1 .
Figure 13: Recovered shapes and error maps of Monkey .
Figure 14: Recovered shapes and error maps of Owl2 .
Figure 15: Recovered shapes and error maps of Bell .
Figure 16: Recovered shapes and error maps of Duck .
Figure 17: Recovered shapes and error maps of Monk1 .
Figure 18: Recovered shapes and error maps of Tiger .
Figure 19: Recovered shapes and error maps of SilverDog .
Figure 20: Recovered shapes and error maps of Snail .
Figure 21: Recovered shapes and error maps of Swan .
Figure 22: Recovered shapes and error maps of Yoga .
Figure 23: Recovered shapes and error maps of Hugo .
Figure 24: Recovered shapes and error maps of Chess .
Figure 25: Recovered shapes and error maps of BlackDog .
Figure 26: Recovered shapes and error maps of Monk2 .
Figure 27: Recovered shapes and error maps of Bird .
Figure 28: Recovered shapes and error maps of Caw .
Figure 29: Recovered shapes and error maps of Knight .
Figure 30: Recovered shapes and error maps of Frog .
Figure 31: Recovered shapes and error maps of Sphinx .
Figure 32: Recovered shapes and error maps of Cambodia .
Figure 33: Recovered shapes and error maps of Mummy .
Figure 34: Recovered shapes and error maps of Dragon .
Multiview 3D evaluation assumes that the images being scored are observations of one static 3D scene. This assumption can fail in NVS and sparse-view reconstruction: inputs or generated outputs may contain artifacts, outlier frames, repeated views, or noise, yet still receive high 3D consistency scores. Existing reference-based metrics require ground truth, while ground-truth-free metrics such as MEt3R depend on learned reconstruction backbones whose failure modes are poorly characterized. We study this reliability problem by comparing neural reconstruction priors with classical geometric verification. We introduce \benchmark, a controlled robustness benchmark for multiview 3D consistency, and a parametric family that decomposes neural metrics into backbone, residual, and aggregation components. This family recovers MEt3R and yields variants up to 3× more robust. Our analysis shows that VGGT, MASt3R, DUSt3R, and Fast3R can hallucinate dense geometry and cross-view support for unrelated scenes, repeated images, and random noise. We introduce COLMAP-based metrics that use matches, registration, dense support, and reconstruction failure as failure-aware consistency signals. On real NVS outputs and a structured human study, these metrics achieve up to 4× higher correlation with human judgments than MEt3R.
Accurate 3D reconstruction of objects with reflective, transparent, or low-texture surfaces still remains notoriously challenging. Such materials often violate key assumptions in multi-view reconstruction pipelines, such as photometric consistency and the availability on distinct geometric texture cues. Existing datasets primarily focus on diffuse, textured objects, and therefore provide limited insight into performance under real-world material complexities. We introduce 3DReflecNet, a large-scale hybrid dataset exceeding 22 TB that is specifically designed to benchmark and advance 3D vision methods for these challenging materials. 3DReflecNet combines two types of data: over 120,000 synthetic instances generated via physically-based rendering of more than 12,000 shapes, and over 1,000 real-world objects captured using consumer devices. Together, these data consist of more than 7 million multi-view frames. The dataset spans diverse materials, complex lighting conditions, and a wide range of geometric forms, including shapes generated from both real and LLM-synthesized 2D images using diffusion-based pipelines. To support robust evaluation, we design benchmarks for five core tasks: image matching, structure-from-motion, novel view synthesis, reflection removal, and relighting. Extensive experiments demonstrate that state-of-the-art methods struggle to maintain accuracy across these settings, highlighting the need for more resilient 3D vision models.
Zhicheng Liang, Haoyi Yu, Boyan Li +6
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Capital Normal University · University of Southern California
Photogrammetric 3D reconstruction has long relied on traditional Structure-from-Motion (SfM) and Multi-View Stereo (MVS) methods, which provide high accuracy but face challenges in speed and scalability. Recently, learning-based MVS methods have emerged, aiming for faster and more efficient reconstruction. This work presents a comparative evaluation between a representative traditional MVS pipeline (COLMAP) and state-of-the-art learning-based approaches, including geometry-guided methods (MVSNet, PatchmatchNet, MVSAnywhere, MVSFormer++) and end-to-end frameworks (Stereo4D, FoundationStereo, DUSt3R, MASt3R, Fast3R, VGGT). Two experiments were conducted on different aerial scenarios. The first experiment used the MARS-LVIG dataset, where ground-truth 3D reconstruction was provided by LiDAR point clouds. The second experiment used a public scene from the Pix4D official website, with ground truth generated by Pix4Dmapper. We evaluated accuracy, coverage, and runtime across all methods. Experimental results show that although COLMAP can provide reliable and geometrically consistent reconstruction results, it requires more computation time. In cases where traditional methods fail in image registration, learning-based approaches exhibit stronger feature-matching capability and greater robustness. Geometry-guided methods usually require careful dataset preparation and often depend on camera pose or depth priors generated by COLMAP. End-to-end methods such as DUSt3R and VGGT achieve competitive accuracy and reasonable coverage while offering substantially faster reconstruction. However, they exhibit relatively large residuals in 3D reconstruction, particularly in challenging scenarios.
Yawen Li, George Vosselman, Francesco Nex
Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands