Standard visual localization methods typically require offline pre-processing of scenes to obtain 3D structural information for better performance. This inevitably introduces additional computational and time costs, as well as the overhead of storing scene representations. Can we visually localize in a wild scene without any off-line preprocessing step? In this paper, we leverage the online inference capabilities of feed-forward 3D reconstruction networks to propose a novel map-free visual localization framework L3. Specifically, by performing direct online 3D reconstruction on RGB images, followed by two-stage metric scale recovery and pose refinement based on 2D-3D correspondences, L3 achieves high accuracy without the need to pre-build or store any offline scene representations. Extensive experiments demonstrate L3 not only that the performance is comparable to state-of-the-art solutions on various benchmarks, but also that it exhibits significantly superior robustness in sparse scenes (fewer reference images per scene).
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Comparison of dense and sparse scenes. Green denotes ground truth query poses and references are cyan. The predicted poses by different methods are shown in different colors: red for ACE [ 4 ] , magenta for ACE+GS-CPR [ 27 ] , and blue for our proposed L3 . Dense Scene: Localization using all 1000 reference images. Sparse Scene: We sampled the 1000 reference images and retain only 20. Our L3 significantly outperforms other baselines in this challenging case.
Figure 3: Overview of L3 . Coarse Localization: Given a query image Iq and retrieved references {Ir,i}i=1K , we first perform feed-forward 3D reconstruction to predict local point clouds Prlocal , query pose Pqlocal and reference poses Prlocal . A scale estimation module then computes the scale factor S via a two-stage strategy to initialize the pose Pqinit . Pose Refinement: The pose is refined via structure optimization and PnP to yield the final 6-DoF pose Pq . Output: We compare the query image (top-left) with its rendering under the predicted pose (bottom-right), separated by a diagonal line.
Figure 4: Scale Estimation Strategy. Stage 1: Absolute depths are triangulated using ground truth (GT) reference poses. If the median ratio Stri between GT and local depths (from Prlocal ) has a deviation dtri below a threshold, Stri is adopted. Stage 2: Otherwise, we align the predicted trajectory Prlocal with the GT trajectory PrGT via rotation Ralign . A RANSAC scheme then yields the scale Straj by minimizing Euclidean distance error. Straj is accepted if dtraj < dtri (fallback to Stri otherwise).
Methods
Chess
Fire
Heads
Office
Pumpkin
Redkitchen
Stairs
Avg. ↓ [cm/ ∘ ]
APR
PoseNet [ 21 ] 1 1 1 These data are cited from NeFeS [ 11 ] .
10/4.02
27/10.0
18/13.0
17/5.97
19/4.67
22/5.91
35/10.5
21/7.74
DFNet [ 13 ] 1 1 1 These data are cited from NeFeS [ 11 ] .
3/1.12
6/2.30
4/2.29
6/1.54
7/1.92
7/1.74
12/2.63
6/1.93
Marepo [ 12 ] 2 2 2 These data are cited from GS-CPR [ 27 ] .
1.9/0.83
2.3/0.92
2.1/1.24
2.9/0.93
2.5/0.88
2.9/0.98
5.9/1.48
2.9/1.04
SCR
DSAC* [ 7 ] 2 2 2 These data are cited from GS-CPR [ 27 ] .
0.5 /0.17
0.8/0.28
0.5/0.34
1.2/0.34
1.2/0.28
0.7 /0.21
2.7/0.78
1.1/0.34
ACE [ 4 ]
0.5 /0.19
0.8/0.33
0.5/0.33
1.1/0.29
1.1/ 0.22
0.8/0.20
2.9/0.80
1.1/0.34
GLACE [ 43 ]
0.6/0.18
0.9/0.34
0.6/0.35
1.0/0.29
0.9 /0.23
0.8/0.20
3.1/0.95
1.1/0.36
Table 1: Results on 7Scenes dataset. We compare the median translation and rotation errors (cm/ ∘ ) of different methods, lower is better. Best results are in bold .
Methods
Avg. ↓ [cm/ ∘ ]
Avg. ↑ [5cm, 5 ∘ ]
Avg. ↑ [1cm, 1 ∘ ]
APR
Marepo [ 12 ] 2 2 2 These data are cited from GS-CPR [ 27 ] .
2.1/1.04
95
−
SCR
ACE [ 4 ]
0.7/0.26
100
75.1
GLACE [ 43 ]
0.7/0.25
100
78.7
NVS
ACE + GS-CPR [ 27 ]
0.5/0.21
100
86.7
L3 (ours)
0.4/0.19
99.5
86.7
Table 2: Results on 12Scenes dataset. We compare the median translation and rotation errors (cm/ ∘ ) of different methods, and the average accuracy of frames under a specified threshold. Best results are in bold .
Methods
Kings
Hospital
Shop
Church
Avg. ↓ [cm/ ∘ ]
FM
AS (SIFT) [ 36 ]
13/ 0.2
20/0.4
4/0.2
8/0.3
11/0.28
HLoc (SP+SG) [ 15 , 35 ]
12/ 0.2
15/ 0.3
4/0.2
7/0.2
10/0.23
ImLoc [ 19 ]
11/0.2
14/0.3
4/0.2
7/0.2
9/0.23
APR
LENS [ 32 ]
33/0.5
44/0.9
27/1.6
53/1.6
39/1.15
DFNet [ 13 ]
73/2.37
200/2.98
67/2.21
137/4.03
119/2.90
PMNet [ 25 ]
68/1.97
103/1.31
58/2.10
133/3.73
90/2.27
Table 3: Results on Cambridge Landmarks dataset . We compare the median translation and rotation errors (cm/ ∘ ) of different methods. Best results are in bold .
Datasets
Methods
Dense
Sparse
N=30
N=20
N=10
N=5
7Scenes
ACE [ 4 ]
1.1/0.34
2.7/0.65
3.2/0.79
9.2/1.53
348.7/4.78
ACE + GS-CPR [ 27 ]
0.8/0.25
1.5/0.42
1.6/0.46
5.2/1.33
−
L3coarse (ours)
2.5/0.71
3.7/1.02
4.3/1.17
5.7/1.52
6.4/1.65
Lw/o. Optim3 (ours)
2.5/0.67
2.8/0.79
3.1/0.84
5.1/1.42
6.5/1.66
L3 (ours)
1.3/0.41
1.9/0.56
2.3/0.63
4.5/1.26
5.9/1.61
Table 4: Sparse view localization on the 7Scenes and 12Scenes datasets. We report the mean of median translation and rotation errors (cm/ ∘ ) across all subscenes. N is the number of sampled reference images. ”-” indicates localization failure in at least one subscene. Best results are in bold .
Methods
Dense
Sparse
N=60
N=50
N=40
N=30
ACE [ 4 ]
21/0.47
83/1.70
122/2.85
111/2.43
261/5.65
ACE + GS-CPR [ 27 ]
15/0.33
41/1.10
72/2.13
88/5.41
350/8.63
L3coarse (ours)
36/0.54
42/0.64
40/0.64
56/0.68
54/0.76
Lw/o. Optim3 (ours)
15/0.33
23/0.46
20/0.53
23/0.47
34/0.66
L3 (ours)
11/0.27
18/0.39
17/0.37
20/0.42
25/0.53
Table 5: Results of sparse view localization on the Cambridge dataset. We compare the mean of the median translation and rotation errors (cm/ ∘ ) for different methods across all subscenes. Best results are in bold .
Figure 5: Robustness analysis under increasing sparsity. We plot the log-scale translation error growth relative to the dense setting on three datasets. ” ✕ ” indicates localization failure beyond that sparsity level.
Figure 6: Ablation of scale estimation strategies on 12Scenes dataset. We compare our full method in Sec. 3.1 ( blue line ) against variants using only stage 1 (local geometric consistency, red line ) or stage 2 (global trajectory constraints, yellow line ).
Figure 7: Comparison of localization errors. Position (trajectories) and rotation (bottom bars, x-axis denotes frame indices) errors are colored by magnitude for ACE [ 4 ] , GS-CPR [ 27 ] , and our L3 . (a) Outdoor StMarysChurch (Cambridge Landmarks). (b) Indoor Office2_5b (12Scenes). Both panels compare dense (top) and sparse (bottom, N=30 ) settings.
Metrics
ACE [ 4 ]
GS-CPR [ 27 ]
L3 (ours)
Pre-processing time (min) ↓
2
31
0.6
Inference time (s) ↓
0.02
0.26
2.1
Storage (MB) ↓
4
203
0
Avg. Error [cm/ ∘ ] ↓
21/0.47
15/0.33
11/0.27
Table 6: Time comparison on the Cambridge Landmarks dataset. We only need top retrieval. Best results are in bold .
Target localization is a prerequisite for embodied tasks such as navigation and manipulation. Conventional approaches rely on constructing explicit 3D scene representations to enable target localization, such as point clouds, voxel grids, or scene graphs. While effective, these pipelines incur substantial mapping time, storage overhead, and scalability limitations. Recent advances in vision-language models suggest that rich semantic reasoning can be performed directly on 2D observations, raising a fundamental question: is a complete 3D scene reconstruction necessary for object localization? In this work, we revisit object localization and propose a map-free pipeline that stores only posed RGB-D keyframes as a lightweight visual memory--without constructing any global 3D representation of the scene. At query time, our method retrieves candidate views, re-ranks them with a vision-language model, and constructs a sparse, on-demand 3D estimate of the queried target through depth backprojection and multi-view fusion. Compared to reconstruction-based pipelines, this design drastically reduces preprocessing cost, enabling scene indexing that is over two orders of magnitude faster to build while using substantially less storage. We further validate the localized targets on downstream object-goal navigation tasks. Despite requiring no task-specific training, our approach achieves strong performance across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating that direct reasoning over image-based scene memory can effectively replace dense 3D reconstruction for object-centric robot navigation. Project page: https://ruizhou-cn.github.io/memory-over-maps/
Relative camera pose is a basic geometric cue for visual re-localization and scene understanding. When using images alone, visual evidence may not sufficiently support reliable estimation of 3D-consistent motion. The challenge is especially acute in unfamiliar and ever-changing environments for real-time applications, where a system must infer spatial structure under tight time constraints from what it sees rather than rely on scene-specific reconstruction or training. This raises a fundamental question: how can live 3D camera motion be estimated accurately for re-localization in unseen environments while drawing on enough scene context to resolve pose ambiguity? We introduce MultiLoc, a multi-view-guided relative pose regressor trained at scale to achieve spatial and geometric consistent representations for robust visual re-localization in unseen scenarios with high inference speed. Specifically, MultiLoc creates a minimal 3D-sub-scene representation of the environment and efficiently transforms it into 3D spatially and geometrically consistent features in a single forward pass, enabling precise pose estimates with high inference speed gains. Across diverse indoor, outdoor, and in-the-wild visual re-localization benchmarks---Indoor6, Cambridge Landmarks and WaySpots---MultiLoc consistently outperforms state-of-the-art relative pose regression methods. We also highlight that MultiLoc, a pose regressor, also performs competitively with inference-heavy and structure-based approaches while retaining sub-second inference and generalizing to unseen scenes. Given a small posed support set, it also surpasses relative pose regression, feature-matching, and non-regression methods on several relative camera pose benchmarks. Code will be released.
We present a scalable 3D reconstruction model that addresses a critical limitation in offline feed-forward methods: their computational and memory requirements grow quadratically w.r.t. the number of input images. Our approach is built on the key insight that this bottleneck stems from the varying-length Key-Value (KV) space representation of scene geometry, which we distill into a fixed-size Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) via test-time training. VGG-T3 (Visual Geometry Grounded Test Time Training) scales linearly w.r.t. the number of input views, similar to online models, and reconstructs a 1k image collection in just 54 seconds, achieving a 11.6× speed-up over baselines that rely on softmax attention. Since our method retains global scene aggregation capability, our point map reconstruction error outperforming other linear-time methods by large margins. Finally, we demonstrate visual localization capabilities of our model by querying the scene representation with unseen images.