In this paper, we introduce NAS3R, a self-supervised feed-forward framework that jointly learns explicit 3D geometry and camera parameters with no ground-truth annotations and no pretrained priors. During training, NAS3R reconstructs 3D Gaussians from uncalibrated and unposed context views and renders target views using its self-predicted camera parameters, enabling self-supervised training from 2D photometric supervision. To ensure stable convergence, NAS3R integrates reconstruction and camera prediction within a shared transformer backbone regulated by masked attention, and adopts a depth-based Gaussian formulation that facilitates well-conditioned optimization. The framework is compatible with state-of-the-art supervised 3D reconstruction architectures and can incorporate pretrained priors or intrinsic information when available. Extensive experiments show that NAS3R achieves superior results to other self-supervised methods, establishing a scalable and geometry-aware paradigm for 3D reconstruction from unconstrained data. Code and models are publicly available at https://ranrhuang.github.io/nas3r/.
Figures & tables
Method
Priors
Training
Inference
Pose
Intrinsics
Pose
Intrinsics
Supervised
pixelSplat
DINO [ 6 ]
✓
✓
✓
✓
MVSplat
UniMatch [ 68 ]
✓
✓
✓
✓
NoPoSplat
MASt3R [ 34 ]
✓
✓
✗
✓
Self-Supervised
Table 1: Training and inference requirements of different methods. Training columns indicate the need for ground-truth camera poses and intrinsics, while inference columns indicate whether context-view camera parameters are required as model inputs.
Figure 2: Training pipeline of NAS3R. Subscripts “ C ” and “ T ” denote context and target views, respectively. Unconstrained images are patchified into visual tokens and concatenated with a learnable camera token for camera prediction. A masked decoder regulates cross-view interactions and prevents target-to-context leakage. Refined context tokens are then processed by the Gaussian head to predict Gaussian parameters, while a depth head estimates depth maps that are lifted into 3D Gaussian centers using the predicted context poses. The predicted target poses are finally used to render novel views, providing photometric supervision for end-to-end training.
Method
Training Data
RE10K
ACID
DL3DV
DTU
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Supervised
pixelSplat
RE10K
23.859
0.808
0.184
25.477
0.770
0.207
21.370
0.713
0.250
15.067
0.539
0.341
MVSplat
24.012
0.812
0.175
25.525
0.773
0.199
20.344
0.673
0.258
14.542
0.537
0.324
NoPoSplat ∗
21.382
0.709
0.266
23.193
0.667
0.274
18.235
0.518
0.364
15.113
0.455
0.450
Self-Supervised
Table 2: Performance comparison of in-domain and out-of-domain two-view novel view synthesis for models trained with no supervised 3D priors . The best results among self-supervised methods are highlighted. ∗ indicates the variants with random initialization.
Figure 3: Comparison of NVS results across different methods. The leftmost column shows the two-view context images. From top to bottom, the settings are RE10K, RE10K → ACID, RE10K → DTU, and RE10K → DL3DV.
Figure 4: Visual comparison of pose trajectories on RE10K. Camera frustums for ground-truth and predicted poses are shown in black and orange , respectively. The top two examples correspond to 5-view reconstruction, while the bottom example corresponds to 10-view reconstruction.
Method
RE10K
ACID
DL3DV
Rotation
Translation
Overall
Rotation
Translation
Overall
Rotation
Translation
Overall
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
SfM-based
SP + SG
62.7
73.3
42.0
58.5
40.6
56.9
62.3
72.4
38.0
51.6
36.3
50.0
47.8
56.1
40.2
52.6
37.2
49.2
NVS-based
SelfSplat
48.7
62.7
19.2
32.8
18.4
31.8
64.5
75.2
26.4
40.5
25.8
39.6
21.0
34.4
8.9
22.4
6.1
16.8
Table 3: Performance comparison of two-view pose estimation (AUC, %) on RE10K, ACID and DL3DV datasets. All NVS models are trained on RE10K with no supervised 3D priors . ∗ indicates the SPFSplat variant trained with random initialization.
Figure 7
Method
RE10K
RE10K → ACID
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Supervised
NoPoSplat
25.061
0.839
0.161
25.765
0.776
0.199
Self-Supervised
PF3plat
21.042
0.739
0.233
20.726
0.610
0.308
SPFSplat
25.484
0.847
0.153
25.965
0.781
0.190
Table 5: Performance comparison of two-view NVS when using supervised priors . Best and second-best results are highlighted.
Method
RE10K
RE10K → ACID
5 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
5 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
SfM-based
DUSt3R
33.6
54.1
70.2
11.8
27.9
47.0
MASt3R
28.1
49.4
67.1
13.8
31.2
50.7
VGGT
25.7
47.4
65.8
14.2
30.4
48.6
NVS-based
Table 6: Performance comparison of two-view pose estimation when using supervised priors . “-I” indicates using GT intrinsics.
Training Data
NVS
Pose
Depth
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
rel ↓
τ↑
RE10K
15.146
0.520
0.442
19.2
34.1
0.206
71.4
DL3DV
16.171
0.542
0.431
19.1
33.2
0.175
71.9
RE10K+DL3DV
16.316
0.552
0.420
24.5
41.6
0.145
79.1
Table 7: Performance on NVS and pose estimation (ScanNet++) and depth estimation (BlendedMVS) with increasing training data.
Num of Views
NVS
Pose
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
5 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
2 views
23.130
0.764
0.193
32.6
51.0
64.9
3 views
25.384
0.829
0.141
37.9
57.6
72.0
5 views
25.983
0.844
0.131
38.9
58.5
72.8
10 views
27.093
0.872
0.113
41.0
61.0
75.5
Table 8: Performance on novel view synthesis and pose estimation with varying number of input views.
Method
Depth
Pose
rel ↓
τ↑
5 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
(1) Self-Supervised (NAS3R)
0.145
79.1
29.8
49.5
66.8
(2) Supervised from scratch
0.177
76.6
10.7
23.5
39.4
(3) Supervised from weights in (1)
0.119
90.0
33.9
54.3
71.3
Table 9: Self-supervised pretraining improves downstream finetuning. Supervised finetuning from self-supervised pretrained weights (3) outperforms both self-supervised learning (1) and supervised training from scratch (2) on BlendedMVS.
Figure 6: Examples of 3D Gaussians and rendered RGB and depth results on RE10K.
Figure 7: More novel view synthesis qualitative comparisons on DL3DV.
Method
NVS
Pose
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
5 ∘ ↑
10 ∘ ↑
20 ∘ ↑
No Curriculum
21.020
0.650
0.255
20.3
35.8
50.2
Progressive Interval Curriculum
23.130
0.764
0.193
32.6
51.0
64.9
Table 10: Ablation on progressive interval curriculum on RE10K.
Methods
w/o priors
w/ VGGT priors
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
NAS3R
23.130
0.764
0.193
25.888
0.861
0.136
NAS3R-I
23.144
0.758
0.196
25.872
0.861
0.135
Table 11: Ablation on ground-truth intrinsics on RE10K.
Method
Training Data
2 View
5 Views
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
(a) AnySplat
DL3DV+8 datasets
16.905
0.514
0.249
21.680
0.694
0.218
(b) NAS3R
DL3DV
20.069
0.588
0.281
21.307
0.646
0.240
Table 12: Comparison with AnySplat on DL3DV dataset.
Methods
Params (M)
FLOPs (GMac)
Time (s)
NAS3R (MASt3R)
613.47
404.52
0.042
NAS3R (VGGT)
1223.2
607.65
0.073
Table 13: Inference efficiency on an NVIDIA A6000 GPU.
Figure 8: More novel view synthesis qualitative comparisons on RE10K.
Figure 9: More novel view synthesis qualitative comparisons on ACID.
Feed-forward 3D reconstruction models are efficient but rigid: once trained, they perform inference in a zero-shot manner and cannot adapt to the test scene. As a result, visually plausible reconstructions often contain errors, particularly under occlusions, specularities, and ambiguous cues. To address this, we introduce Free Geometry, a framework that enables feed-forward 3D reconstruction models to self-evolve at test time without any 3D ground truth. Our key insight is that, when the model receives more views, it produces more reliable and view-consistent reconstructions. Leveraging this property, given a testing sequence, we mask a subset of frames to construct a self-supervised task. Free Geometry enforces cross-view feature consistency between representations from full and partial observations, while maintaining the pairwise relations implied by the held-out frames. This self-supervision allows for fast recalibration via lightweight LoRA updates, taking less than 2 minutes per dataset on a single GPU. Our approach consistently improves state-of-the-art foundation models, including Depth Anything 3 and VGGT, across 4 benchmark datasets, yielding an average improvement of 3.73% in camera pose accuracy and 2.88% in point map prediction. Code is available at https://github.com/hiteacherIamhumble/Free-Geometry .
Yuhang Dai, Xingyi Yang
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR
Recent advances in vision foundation models have revolutionized geometry reconstruction and semantic understanding. Yet, most of the existing approaches treat these capabilities in isolation, leading to redundant pipelines and compounded errors. This paper introduces FF3R, a fully annotation-free feed-forward framework that unifies geometric and semantic reasoning from unconstrained multi-view image sequences. Unlike previous methods, FF3R does not require camera poses, depth maps, or semantic labels, relying solely on rendering supervision for RGB and feature maps, establishing a scalable paradigm for unified 3D reasoning. In addition, we address two critical challenges in feedforward feature reconstruction pipelines, namely global semantic inconsistency and local structural inconsistency, through two key innovations: (i) a Token-wise Fusion Module that enriches geometry tokens with semantic context via cross-attention, and (ii) a Semantic-Geometry Mutual Boosting mechanism combining geometry-guided feature warping for global consistency with semantic-aware voxelization for local coherence. Extensive experiments on ScanNet and DL3DV-10K demonstrate FF3R's superior performance in novel-view synthesis, open-vocabulary semantic segmentation, and depth estimation, with strong generalization to in-the-wild scenarios, paving the way for embodied intelligence systems that demand both spatial and semantic understanding.
Chaoyi Zhou, Run Wang, Feng Luo +4
Microsoft · Clemson University · Texas A&M University
We introduce SPFSplatV2, an efficient feed-forward framework for 3D Gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images, requiring no ground-truth poses during training or inference. The framework employs a shared feature extraction backbone to jointly predict 3D Gaussian primitives and camera poses in a canonical space from unposed inputs. To enable efficient and accurate pose estimation, we introduce a masked attention mechanism for target-view pose prediction and a reprojection loss that enforces pixel-aligned Gaussian primitives, providing stronger geometric constraints. We further demonstrate the compatibility of our training framework with different reconstruction architectures, resulting in two model variants. Remarkably, despite the absence of pose supervision, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both in-domain and out-of-domain novel view synthesis, even under extreme viewpoint changes and limited image overlap. It also surpasses many methods that rely on geometric supervision in relative pose estimation. By eliminating dependence on ground-truth poses, our method offers the scalability to leverage larger and more diverse datasets. Code and pretrained models will be available on our project page: https://ranrhuang.github.io/spfsplatv2/.
Ranran Huang, Krystian Mikolajczyk
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom