DAGE: Dual-Stream Architecture for Efficient and Fine-Grained Geometry Estimation

Tuan Duc Ngo; Jiahui Huang; Seoung Wug Oh; Kevin Blackburn-Matzen; Evangelos Kalogerakis; Chuang Gan; Joon-Young Lee

Figure 2: Overview of DAGE. Given a set of unposed RGB images, the model predicts per-frame pointmaps and camera poses, plus a scene-wise metric scale. The architecture has two parallel streams: (i) a low-resolution stream (lower part) that processes downsampled inputs to aggregate global context and regress poses/scene scale; and (ii) a high-resolution stream (upper part) that processes frames independently at native resolution to preserve fine detail. A lightweight Adapter fuses LR and HR tokens before the dense geometry head.

Figure 3: The Global transformer (left) operates on low-resolution inputs with alternating global and frame-wise attention; during training, feature distillation compensates for aggressive downsampling. The Adapter (right) stacks cross and self-attention blocks to fuse multi-view–consistent LR tokens into the HR stream.

Method	MV	HR	PO	GMU [ 34 ]		Monkaa [ 64 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		ScanNet [ 20 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Unreal4K [ 92 ]		Diode [ 93 ]		Rank $\downarrow$
				( $960\times 512$ )		( $960\times 512$ )		( $896\times 448$ )		( $640\times 512$ )		( $768\times 384$ )		( $2048\times 1024$ )		( $1920\times 1080$ )		( $1024\times 768$ )
				$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$
DepthPro [ 8 ]		✓		9.5	93.9	25.1	58.4	40.8	44.7	9.3	94.9	10.0	94.9	48.9	40.1	74.7	12.0	32.4	59.2	7.9
MoGe [ 99 ]		✓		20.3	71.2	22.9	61.3	29.4	59.8	13.4	88.0	8.0	95.8	14.9	87.0	38.3	51.5	31.8	52.9	7.4
MoGe2 [ 100 ]		✓		19.6	72.4	25.0	57.0	29.8	58.4	12.4	89.4	9.0	97.2	13.4	90.0	32.9	59.1	31.0	54.2	6.8
MoGe2 [ 100 ] †	$\triangle$	✓		7.1	94.6	21.4	67.6	28.2	62.8	7.8	97.5	10.5	98.4	7.2	97.1	12.6	86.7	15.8	84.1	4.1

Table 1: Video pointmap evaluation . Results are aligned with the ground truth by optimizing a shared scale and shift factor across the entire video. “MV/HR/PO” indicate multi-view support, high-resolution input support, and whether the method predicts camera poses. We mark best and second-best .

Figure 4: Visual comparison of video depth on in-the-wild scenes. We convert the depth map to a disparity map for better visualization, and zoom-in ( red bounding boxes ) to emphasize details. DAGE preserves sharp boundaries and fine-grained detail—especially for thin structures and small or distant objects, outperforming a diffusion-based baseline [ 109 ] .

Figure 5: Visual comparison of 3D reconstruction on in-the-wild scenes. Compared to VGGT [ 96 ] and Pi3 [ 103 ] , DAGE achieves comparable multi-view consistency while preserving markedly finer detail ( green boxes ).

Method	Monkaa [ 64 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Unreal4K [ 92 ]
Method	F1 $\uparrow$	$C_{\mathrm{PDBE}}\downarrow$	F1 $\uparrow$	$C_{\mathrm{PDBE}}\downarrow$	F1 $\uparrow$	$C_{\mathrm{PDBE}}\downarrow$	F1 $\uparrow$	$C_{\mathrm{PDBE}}\downarrow$
DepthPro [ 8 ]	0.19	21.3	0.41	17.0	0.14	12.5	0.07	116.4
MoGe2 [ 100 ]	0.27	11.6	0.27	10.1	0.09	19.1	0.10	35.2
GeoCrafter [ 109 ]	0.19	8.86	0.28	8.1	0.08 $\star$	33.2 $\star$	0.06 $\star$	41.4 $\star$
CUT3R [ 98 ]	0.08	20.3	0.11	16.5	0.01	44.0	0.01	63.1
VGGT [ 96 ]	0.14	11.1	0.20	9.6	0.02 $\star$	42.0 $\star$	0.03 $\star$	38.1 $\star$

Table 2: Sharpness depth evaluation .

Method	Setting	7-Scenes [ 82 ]			NRGBD [ 2 ]
Method	Setting	Acc. $\downarrow$	Comp. $\downarrow$	NC $\uparrow$	Acc. $\downarrow$	Comp. $\downarrow$	NC $\uparrow$
Fast3R [ 110 ]	sparse	0.065	0.089	0.759	0.091	0.104	0.877
CUT3R [ 98 ]		0.049	0.051	0.805	0.041	0.031	0.968
FLARE [ 120 ]		0.057	0.107	0.780	0.024	0.025	0.988
VGGT [ 96 ]		0.025	0.033	0.845	0.029	0.038	0.981
Pi3 [ 103 ]		0.029	0.049	0.841	0.015	0.014	0.992

Table 3: Multi-view reconstruction evaluation. We report the median values on 3 settings, including sparse , dense , and metric .

Method	Sintel [ 9 ]			TUM-dynamics [ 85 ]			ScanNet [ 20 ]
Method	ATE $\downarrow$	RPE T $\downarrow$	RPE R $\downarrow$	ATE $\downarrow$	RPE T $\downarrow$	RPE R $\downarrow$	ATE $\downarrow$	RPE T $\downarrow$	RPE R $\downarrow$
Fast3R [ 110 ]	0.371	0.298	13.75	0.090	0.101	1.425	0.155	0.123	3.491
CUT3R [ 98 ]	0.217	0.070	0.636	0.047	0.015	0.451	0.094	0.022	0.629
FLARE [ 120 ]	0.207	0.090	3.015	0.026	0.013	0.475	0.064	0.023	0.971
VGGT [ 96 ]	0.167	0.062	0.491	0.012	0.010	0.311	0.035	0.015	0.382
Pi3 [ 103 ]	0.074	0.040	0.282	0.014	0.009	0.312	0.031	0.013	0.347

Table 4: Camera pose evaluation

Resolution	MoGe2 †		GeoCrafter		CUT3R		VGGT		Pi3		DAGE
Resolution	FPS	Mem.	FPS	Mem.	FPS	Mem.	FPS	Mem.	FPS	Mem.	FPS	Mem.
540 $\times$ 360	79.4	8.1	3.1	17.3	27.2	16.5	30.1	17.3	36.3	17.2	65.4	10.1
960 $\times$ 512	30.0	15.3	1.7	24.1	20.3	19.0	2.1	26.9	3.1	23.1	28.9	18.3
2048 $\times$ 1024	6.1	22.1	OOM		4.5	33.2	OOM		0.2	66.7	5.6	27.9

Table 5: Throughput comparison. FPS

\uparrow

/ GPU memory

\downarrow

(GB) measured on 100-frame clips per resolution.

Table 6: Ablation studies (a) different adapter design, (b) effect of each component on the depth sharpness

Reso.	Sintel [ 9 ] (pose)			Sintel [ 9 ] (depth)			NRGBD [ 2 ]		FPS $\uparrow$
Reso.	ATE $\downarrow$	RPE T $\downarrow$	RPE R $\downarrow$	Rel ${}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	F1 $\uparrow$	Acc. $\downarrow$	Comp. $\downarrow$	FPS $\uparrow$
252px (default)	0.132	0.051	0.406	21.5	75.5	0.34	0.018	0.016	65.4
252px (no distill)	0.111	0.057	0.584	22.9	73.0	0.35	0.019	0.017	65.4
336px	0.130	0.042	0.307	20.4	76.9	0.35	0.018	0.016	46.6
518px	0.117	0.039	0.258	19.7	77.7	0.36	0.016	0.016	22.5

Table 7: Ablation study on the LR stream resolution

Figure 6: Comparison on disparity quality on Pi3, our variant without monocular prior, and our full model.

Dataset Name	Scene type	Metric	Real	Dynamic
ARKitScenes [ 3 ]	Indoor	Yes	Real	Static
ScanNet [ 20 ]	Indoor	Yes	Real	Static
ScanNet++ [ 116 ]	Indoor	Yes	Real	Static
TartanAir [ 102 ]	Mixed	Yes	Synthetic	Dynamic
Waymo [ 87 ]	Outdoor	Yes	Real	Dynamic
BlendedMVS [ 115 ]	Mixed	No	Synthetic	Static

Table 8: Training datasets .

Method	GMU [ 34 ]		Monkaa [ 64 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		ScanNet [ 20 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Unreal4K [ 92 ]		Diode [ 93 ]		Rank $\downarrow$
Method	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	Rank $\downarrow$
DepthPro [ 8 ]	10.5	92.7	27.9	51.2	55.0	37.5	9.3	95.0	11.7	93.6	22.5	61.1	96.1	1.2	30.3	58.1	7.6
MoGe [ 99 ]	21.4	69.0	27.7	58.3	29.5	59.8	13.4	88.2	8.6	95.6	13.4	89.9	34.0	55.7	30.3	53.4	6.9
MoGe2 [ 100 ]	19.7	72.1	30.8	51.1	34.3	47.7	12.7	89.4	11.7	96.9	12.3	91.7	30.1	62.3	29.5	55.4	7.0
MoGe2 [ 100 ] †	7.1	94.6	25.8	60.2	33.1	52.1	7.8	97.5	10.5	98.4	6.5	97.2	8.9	92.1	15.8	84.1	3.9
CUT3R [ 98 ]	8.2	93.6	34.9	45.9	42.9	35.8	6.5	98.0	16.0	88.1	57.9	14.0	17.5	78.3	17.2	81.6	6.9

Table 9: Scale-invariant video pointmap evaluation . Results are aligned with the ground truth by optimizing a shared scale factor across the entire video. We mark best and second-best .

Method	GMU [ 34 ]		Monkaa [ 64 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		ScanNet [ 20 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Unreal4K [ 92 ]		Diode [ 93 ]		Rank $\downarrow$
Method	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	Rank $\downarrow$
DepthPro [ 8 ]	8.8	93.0	23.3	55.8	36.1	49.5	8.1	94.6	11.7	93.6	51.3	38.3	105.0	20.0	31.0	58.8	8.0
MoGe [ 99 ]	19.9	66.5	19.9	63.6	26.5	60.0	12.5	85.9	7.6	94.2	15.2	82.1	38.7	46.2	31.3	48.2	7.6
MoGe2 [ 100 ]	19.0	68.9	20.8	60.8	26.4	59.9	12.1	86.9	6.7	96.7	13.8	85.4	33.6	52.8	29.5	50.4	6.8
MoGe2 [ 100 ] †	6.6	93.8	18.0	68.1	25.0	63.8	6.4	96.8	5.2	98.3	7.7	96.4	12.0	88.3	14.7	80.7	3.8
CUT3R [ 98 ]	7.3	92.9	28.0	49.9	31.9	50.5	5.4	97.4	10.2	89.1	48.6	36.7	15.4	79.7	16.0	78.4	6.8

Table 10: Affine-invariant video depthmap evaluation . Results are aligned with the ground truth by optimizing a shared scale and shift factor across the entire video. We mark best and second-best .

Method	GMU [ 34 ]		Monkaa [ 64 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		ScanNet [ 20 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Unreal4K [ 92 ]		Diode [ 93 ]		Rank $\downarrow$
Method	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	Rank $\downarrow$
DepthPro [ 8 ]	9.4	92.1	26.7	45.9	53.6	35.3	8.8	92.9	8.2	92.5	22.2	40.2	96.0	1.1	29.3	56.4	7.9
MoGe [ 99 ]	20.7	64.7	25.5	54.8	31.4	48.9	13.3	85.0	7.7	94.1	13.1	86.3	34.7	49.8	29.8	48.2	7.6
MoGe2 [ 100 ]	19.5	67.1	27.1	51.6	31.2	47.7	12.0	86.5	7.2	96.7	12.0	88.8	30.7	56.6	28.5	50.7	6.9
MoGe2 [ 100 ] †	6.7	93.8	21.9	60.4	30.1	51.9	7.1	95.9	5.6	98.3	6.0	96.8	8.7	91.0	14.7	80.7	3.7
CUT3R [ 98 ]	7.9	92.6	33.0	38.3	37.3	42.4	5.8	97.0	11.3	86.8	22.2	63.1	16.8	79.6	15.6	80.0	6.7

Table 11: Scale-invariant video depthmap evaluation . Results are aligned with the ground truth by optimizing a shared scale factor across the entire video. We mark best and second-best .

Method	GMU [ 34 ]		ScanNet [ 20 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Diode [ 93 ]
Method	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{p}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{p}\!\uparrow$
CUT3R [ 98 ]	13.5	90.7	9.1	95.2	34.2	14.6	15.4	84.4	31.6	47.2
MapAny [ 49 ]	22.6	63.4	35.2	28.5	29.1	26.3	28.5	37.3	33.8	31.8
DAGE (ours)	7.5	95.3	2.5	99.5	12.0	98.3	8.3	96.5	12.9	87.5

Table 12: Metric video pointmap evaluation . Predicted pointmaps are directly compared with ground truth.

Method	GMU [ 34 ]		Monkaa [ 64 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		ScanNet [ 20 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		UrbanSyn [ 37 ]		Unreal4K [ 92 ]		Diode [ 93 ]
	( $960\times 512$ )		( $960\times 512$ )		( $896\times 448$ )		( $640\times 512$ )		( $768\times 384$ )		( $2048\times 1024$ )		( $1920\times 1080$ )		( $1024\times 768$ )
	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$
CUT3R [ 98 ]	22.0	67.9	30.9	51.0	38.9	40.9	7.0	97.9	13.2	88.7	56.7	13.9	71.6	5.6	31.1	52.6
VGGT [ 96 ]	15.9	91.4	17.7	81.6	28.7	63.8	4.5	99.1	7.8	97.5	OOM	OOM	OOM	OOM	20.5	76.3
Pi3 [ 103 ]	6.2	92.2	12.6	88.9	21.7	72.9	2.2	99.5	5.9	97.5	55.9	14.7	54.2	17.1	13.9	87.2
DAGE (ours)	4.9	94.2	10.1	91.0	21.5	75.6	2.1	99.5	5.9	99.0	8.8	96.0	11.9	89.1	9.7	94.4

Table 13: Affine-invariant video pointmap evaluation at native resolution. Predictions are aligned to ground truth by optimizing a single scale and shift across the entire video.

Method	NYUv2 [ 83 ]		KITTI [ 33 ]		ETH3D [ 80 ]		iBims-1 [ 51 ]		GSO [ 25 ]		Sintel [ 9 ]		DDAD [ 35 ]		DIODE [ 93 ]		HAMMER [ 44 ]		Rank $\downarrow$
Method	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	$\mathrm{Rel}^{d}\!\downarrow$	$\delta^{d}\!\uparrow$	Rank $\downarrow$
DepthPro [ 8 ]	4.36	97.9	9.15	90.7	7.73	94.0	4.34	97.4	3.16	99.7	19.6	74.5	14.4	81.2	6.28	93.7	5.31	98.8	3.8
MoGe [ 99 ]	3.68	98.3	4.86	97.2	3.57	99.0	3.61	97.3	1.14	100	16.8	77.8	10.5	91.4	4.37	96.4	3.88	98.1	1.8
MoGe2 [ 100 ]	3.33	98.4	6.47	96.4	3.89	98.7	3.65	98.5	1.16	100	17.4	77.0	10.1	90.3	5.13	94.9	4.19	99.1	1.9
DAGE (ours)	3.34	98.4	7.52	94.7	3.49	98.0	3.70	97.8	1.26	99.9	18.9	74.8	10.7	89.2	4.97	94.6	3.43	98.6	2.5

Table 14: Single-image geometry evaluation . Results are aligned with the ground truth by optimizing a scale and shift factor for each image. We mark best and second-best .

Method	RealEstate10K			Co3Dv2
Method	RRA@30 $\uparrow$	RTA@30 $\uparrow$	AUC@30 $\uparrow$	RRA@30 $\uparrow$	RTA@30 $\uparrow$	AUC@30 $\uparrow$
VGGT (518px)	99.97	93.13	77.62	98.64	97.62	91.28
Pi3 (518px)	99.99	95.62	85.90	98.49	97.53	91.39
DAGE (252px)	99.98	95.22	83.12	98.74	97.71	90.71

Table 15: Pose Estimation on RealEstate10K and Co3Dv2

Table 16: Ablations. (a) LR-stream architectures. (b,c) Positional encodings.

Figure 7: Visualization of 3D pointmap reconstruction on in-the-wild scenarios.

Figure 8: Visualization of video depth estimation . We compare our video depth prediction with VGGT [ 96 ] , Pi3 [ 103 ] , and GeoemtryCrafter [ 109 ] . DAGE demonstrates more sharp and fine-grained predictions.

Figure 9: Visualization of video depth estimation . We compare our video depth prediction with VGGT [ 96 ] , Pi3 [ 103 ] , and GeoemtryCrafter [ 109 ] . DAGE demonstrates more sharp and fine-grained predictions.

Figure 10: Visualization of depth estimation on static scenes.

Figure 11: Visualization of predicted depth edge maps , which are defined by a depth ratio between neighboring pixels above a threshold. We zoom-in the edge map details in the red bounding boxes .

Figure 12: Predicted 3D pointmaps of the aligned MoGe2 baseline and our method. The aligned MoGe2 baseline exhibits layering artifacts ( green boxes ) due to the lack of strong multi-view binding.

Figure 13: Visualization of 3D reconstruction with high-resolution inputs.

Figure 14: Qualitative results for high-resolution single-image inference: (a) VGGT [ 96 ] and (b) Pi3 [ 103 ] .

Figure 15: Attention map of the 15th global-attention layer of VGGT [ 96 ] at different input resolutions. The query token in the first image is marked with a blue star .

Figure 16: Attention map of the 15th global-attention layer of VGGT [ 96 ] at different input resolutions. The query token in the first image is marked with a blue star .

Figure 17: Attention map of the 15th global-attention layer of VGGT [ 96 ] at different input resolutions. The query token in the first image is marked with a blue star .

DAGE: Dual-Stream Architecture for Efficient and Fine-Grained Geometry Estimation

Abstract

Figures & tables

Multi-View 3D Reconstruction

Towards Consistent Video Geometry Estimation

Diversity-aware View Partitioning for Scalable VGGT

RegimeVGGT: Layer-Wise Spatially Preserving Redundancy Removal for Visual Geometry Grounded Transformer

Abstract

Multi-View 3D Reconstruction

Explore similar work

Towards Consistent Video Geometry Estimation

Diversity-aware View Partitioning for Scalable VGGT

RegimeVGGT: Layer-Wise Spatially Preserving Redundancy Removal for Visual Geometry Grounded Transformer