We introduce Marigold-SSD, a single-step, late-fusion depth completion framework that leverages strong diffusion priors while eliminating the costly test-time optimization typically associated with diffusion-based methods. By shifting computational burden from inference to finetuning, our approach enables efficient and robust 3D perception under real-world latency constraints. Marigold-SSD achieves significantly faster inference with a training cost of only 4.5 GPU days. We evaluate our method across four indoor and two outdoor benchmarks, demonstrating strong cross-domain generalization and zero-shot performance compared to existing depth completion approaches. Our approach significantly narrows the efficiency gap between diffusion-based and discriminative models. Finally, we challenge common evaluation protocols by analyzing performance under varying input sparsity levels. Page: https://dtu-pas.github.io/marigold-ssd/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance vs speed trade-off. Comparison of our method Marigold-SSD with other diffusion-based approaches Marigold-DC [ 66 ] and Marigold-E2E [ 44 ] + LS (w/o sparse condition) as well as discriminative baselines [ 50 , 88 ] on KITTI dataset [ 18 ] . Marigold-SSD occupies a unique region in the trade-off space closing the efficiency gap to discriminative methods while retaining the benefit of the strong diffusion prior.
Figure 2: Marigold-SSD for zero-shot depth completion . We present a single-step diffusion framework with end-to-end fine-tuning as an efficient alternative to the test-time optimization approach of Marigold-DC [ 66 ] . To this end, we introduce a conditional decoder with late fusion to incorporate sparse depth measurements. At inference, our method Marigold-SSD produces high-quality results in a single step, while Marigold-DC typically requires 50 optimization steps per inference and often ensembling 10 inferences for further improvements.
Figure 3: Internal architecture of the conditional decoder. DC consists of the VAE decoder D (top row) and blocks processing the sparse condition C (bottom row), adapted from the VAE encoder E (differing in down-sampling positions). Feature maps are concatenated channel‑wise ( ⊕ ) at five levels and the fusion blocks use 1×1 convolutions (Eq. 1 ). Conv denotes standard convolution layers, UP, DOWN, and MID blocks are ResNet [ 23 ] -based, and MID blocks additionally containing an attention layer.
Dataset
Marigold-DC
Marigold-SSD (Ours)
Time (s)
FPS
Time (s) ( ↑× )
FPS
Indoor
ScanNet (640 × 480)
25.08
0.04
0.38 ( 66 × )
2.6
IBims-1 (640 × 480)
24.62
0.04
0.38 ( 65 × )
2.6
VOID (640 × 480)
24.98
0.04
0.38 ( 66 × )
2.6
NYUv2 (640 × 480)
24.56
0.04
0.38 ( 65 × )
2.6
Outdoor
KITTI (1216 × 352)
35.10
0.03
0.53 ( 66 × )
1.9
Table 1: Runtime analysis. Average per-image inference time in seconds , throughput in FPS , and relative speedup compared to Marigold-DC. Runtimes are measured on an NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU. Resolutions shown next to dataset names denote the input size used for the timing experiment. Marigold-DC is timed without ensembling (single run); ensembling (e.g., 10 predictions) would increase runtime approximately linearly.
Type
Method
Time (s) ↓
RMSE ↓
Discriminative
NLSPN [ 50 ] (ECCV ’20)
0.039
2.076
BP-Net [ 62 ] (CVPR ’24)
0.078
-
CFormer [ 88 ] (CVPR ’24)
0.151
1.935
OGNI-DC [ 91 ] (ECCV ’24)
0.266
-
VPP4DC [ 4 ] (3DV ’24)
0.164
1.609
GBPN [ 63 ] (arXiv preprint ’26)
0.137
-
Table 2: Speed-performance trade-off. Zero-shot performance on KITTI [ 18 ] . All runtimes are evalauted on NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPUs. We time Marigold-SSD and Marigold-DC [ 66 ] (Table 1 ) and VPP4DC [ 4 ] . Performance is taken from [ 66 ] , and runtimes at original resolution for the other discriminative methods from [ 63 ] .
Indoor
Outdoor
Average
Type
Method
ScanNet
IBims-1
VOID
NYUv2
KITTI
DDAD
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Rank (Count)
Discriminative
NLSPN [ 50 ] (ECCV ’20)
0.036
0.127
0.049
0.191
0.210
0.668
0.440
0.716
1.335
2.076
2.498
9.231
0.761
2.168
8.50 (12)
CFormer [ 88 ] (CVPR ’23)
0.120
0.232
0.058
0.206
0.216
0.726
0.186
0.374
0.952
1.935
2.518
9.471
0.675
2.157
10.00 (12)
SpAgNet [ 12 ] (WACV ’23)
–
–
–
–
0.244
0.706
0.158
0.292
0.518
1.788
4.578
13.236
–
–
10.13 (8)
BP-Net [ 62 ] (CVPR ’24)
0.122
0.212
0.078
0.289
0.270
0.742
–
–
–
–
2.270
8.344
–
–
11.75 (8)
Table 3: Comparison to state-of-the-art on six zero-shot benchmarks. Most values are taken from [ 66 ] , except for DMD 3 C [ 34 ] and GBPN [ 63 ] , which are reported from their original papers. Following [ 66 ] , we omit BP-Net [ 62 ] and OGNI-DC [ 91 ] on NYUv2 [ 46 ] and KITTI [ 18 ] and SpAgNet [ 12 ] on ScanNet [ 13 ] and IBims-1 [ 30 ] . Similar to Marigold [ 28 ] + optim and Marigold [ 28 ] + LS reported in [ 66 ] , we evaluate Marigold-E2E [ 44 ] + LS as a single-step diffusion baseline. Given the need for speed , we highlight best and second best excluding the ensemble approach of Marigold-DC [ 66 ] which increases runtime by an order of magnitude. Our model version trained on lower density-levels is denoted by ⋆. The rank expresses an average position of the method in the table per metric and dataset.
Figure 4: Qualitative results. Marigold-SSD generally produces smoother depth maps than Marigold-DC [ 66 ] , which tends to over-refine details that can lead to unrealistic scene structures. The black arrows highlight variations in the estimated depth, while the red and blue colors indicate the nearest and farthest regions.
Figure 5: Qualitative results. Both Marigold-SSD and Marigold-DC tend to underestimate sky depth on KITTI and DDAD, consistent with prior Marigold limitations and limited conditioning information in the sky, while they differ in how they estimate fine scene details.
Figure 6: Evaluation under multiple levels of depth density on NYUv2 and ScanNet. Depth density is denoted by the number of depth samples (#). See the supplementary material for all datasets.
Figure 7: Challenging the models on DDAD. At the commonly used sparsity level of 5000 points even sophisticated models can be outperformed by trivial Barycentric interpolation.
Method
Condition
ScanNet
IBims-1
VOID
NYUv2
KITTI
DDAD
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Frozen VAE⋆
Sparse
0.038
0.075
0.099
0.212
0.254
0.721
0.089
0.173
1.899
3.642
6.612
12.295
Frozen VAE⋆
Interpolated
0.022
0.062
0.057
0.178
0.208
0.663
0.064
0.185
0.978
2.418
3.897
9.473
Conditional Encoder⋆
Sparse
0.063
0.103
0.131
0.257
0.222
0.615
0.124
0.208
1.521
3.059
7.637
13.779
Marigold-SSD⋆
Sparse
0.022
0.062
0.056
0.182
0.177
0.588
0.045
0.128
2.443
4.070
3.855
7.840
Frozen VAE
Sparse
0.045
0.087
0.111
0.237
0.315
0.820
0.105
0.201
1.280
2.860
5.976
11.511
Table 4: Late vs Early Fusion. Comparison with early-fusion: models with (i) frozen VAE or (ii) a trainable conditional encoder. i.e, an early fusion equivalent of our conditional decoder. Models trained with lower density-level are denoted by ⋆. The best and second best results are highlighted for each training setup. Our late fusion strategy outperforms in almost all cases early-fusion approaches.
Figure 8: Sampling Density. Models (A), (B) & (C) fine-tuned on different densities. See the supplementary material for all datasets.
Accurate, dense depth estimation is crucial for robotic perception, but commodity sensors often yield sparse or incomplete measurements due to hardware limitations. Existing RGBD-fused depth completion methods learn priors jointly conditioned on training RGB distribution and specific depth patterns, limiting domain generalization and robustness to various depth patterns. Recent efforts leverage monocular depth estimation (MDE) models to introduce domain-general geometric priors, but current two-stage integration strategies relying on explicit relative-to-metric alignment incur additional computation and introduce structured distortions. To this end, we present Any2Full, a one-stage, domain-general, and pattern-agnostic framework that reformulates completion as a scale-prompting adaptation of a pretrained MDE model. To address varying depth sparsity levels and irregular spatial distributions, we design a Scale-Aware Prompt Encoder. It distills scale cues from sparse inputs into unified scale prompts, guiding the MDE model toward globally scale-consistent predictions while preserving its geometric priors. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Any2Full achieves superior robustness and efficiency. It outperforms OMNI-DC by 32.2% in average AbsREL and delivers a 1.4× speedup over PriorDA with the same MDE backbone, establishing a new paradigm for universal depth completion. Codes and checkpoints are available at https://github.com/zhiyuandaily/Any2Full.
Zhiyuan Zhou, Ruofeng Liu, Taichi Liu +4
Rutgers University, USA · Michigan State University, USA · JD Logistics, China +1
We introduce CAPA, a parameter-efficient test-time optimization framework that adapts pre-trained 3D foundation models (FMs) for depth completion, using sparse geometric cues. Unlike prior methods that train task-specific encoders for auxiliary inputs, which often overfit and generalize poorly, CAPA freezes the FM backbone. Instead, it updates only a minimal set of parameters using Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (e.g. LoRA or VPT), guided by gradients calculated directly from the sparse observations available at inference time. This approach effectively grounds the foundation model's geometric prior in the scene-specific measurements, correcting distortions and misplaced structures. For videos, CAPA introduces sequence-level parameter sharing, jointly adapting all frames to exploit temporal correlations, improve robustness, and enforce multi-frame consistency. CAPA is model-agnostic, compatible with any ViT-based FM, and achieves state-of-the-art results across diverse condition patterns on both indoor and outdoor datasets. Project page: research.nvidia.com/labs/dvl/projects/capa.
Depth from Defocus (DfD) is the task of estimating a dense metric depth map from a focus stack. Unlike previous works overfitting to a certain dataset, this paper focuses on the challenging and practical setting of zero-shot generalization. We first propose a new real-world DfD benchmark ZEDD, which contains 8.3x more scenes and significantly higher quality images and ground-truth depth maps compared to previous benchmarks. We also design a novel network architecture named FOSSA. FOSSA is a Transformer-based architecture with novel designs tailored to the DfD task. The key contribution is a stack attention layer with a focus distance embedding, allowing efficient information exchange across the focus stack. Finally, we develop a new training data pipeline allowing us to utilize existing large-scale RGBD datasets to generate synthetic focus stacks. Experiment results on ZEDD and other benchmarks show a significant improvement over the baselines, reducing errors by up to 55.7%. The ZEDD benchmark is released at https://zedd.cs.princeton.edu. The code and checkpoints are released at https://github.com/princeton-vl/FOSSA.
Yiming Zuo, Hongyu Wen, Venkat Subramanian +5
Department of Computer Science, Princeton University