We introduce a test-time framework for multiview Transformers (MVTs) that incorporates priors (e.g., camera poses, intrinsics, and depth) to improve 3D tasks without retraining or modifying pre-trained image-only networks. Rather than feeding priors into the architecture, we cast them as constraints on the predictions and optimize the network at inference time. The optimization loss consists of a self-supervised objective and prior penalty terms. The self-supervised objective captures the compatibility among multi-view predictions and is implemented using photometric or geometric loss between renderings from other views and each view itself. Any available priors are converted into penalty terms on the corresponding output modalities. Across a series of 3D vision benchmarks, including point map estimation and camera pose estimation, our method consistently improves performance over base MVTs by a large margin. On the ETH3D, 7-Scenes, and NRGBD datasets, our method reduces the point-map distance error by more than half compared with the base image-only models. Our method also outperforms retrained prior-aware feed-forward methods, demonstrating the effectiveness of our test-time constrained optimization (TCO) framework for incorporating priors into 3D vision tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Method Overview. (left) Multi-view Transformers (MVTs) take a set of RGB images as input and output depth maps, camera poses, and intrinsics. (middle) Given camera priors, MapAnything [ 22 ] and Pow3R [ 19 ] feed them into the network as additional input modalities, which requires retraining a modified MVT. (right) Our method, Test-time Constrained Optimization (TCO), treats the priors as constraints on the MVT’s predictions and optimizes the network with LoRA using both prior penalty terms and a self-supervised objective, namely MVT prediction compatibility, at inference time.
Method
Compat
Pose
Intr
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
N.C. ↑
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Fast3R [ 48 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.832
0.691
0.978
0.683
0.667
0.766
CUT3R [ 44 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.617
0.525
0.747
0.579
0.754
0.848
FLARE [ 53 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.464
0.338
0.664
0.395
0.744
0.864
Pow3R ( asym. ) [ 19 ]
✗
✓
✓
0.230
0.146
0.188
0.119
0.865
0.968
MapAnything [ 22 ]
✗
✓
✓
0.167
0.100
0.131
0.066
0.866
0.968
Table 1: Point Map Estimation on ETH3D. TCO outperforms both base image-only MVTs and prior-aware feed-forward methods, achieving the best overall performance. Camera poses are the most important prior for improving 3D reconstruction on ETH3D, and combining them with intrinsics yields further gains.
Method
Compat
Pose
Intr
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
N.C. ↑
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Fast3R [ 48 ]
✗
✗
✗
3.340
1.919
2.929
1.125
0.671
0.755
CUT3R [ 44 ]
✗
✗
✗
4.742
2.600
3.400
1.316
0.679
0.764
FLARE [ 53 ]
✗
✗
✗
2.541
1.468
3.174
1.420
0.684
0.774
Pow3R [ 19 ]
✗
✓
✓
1.234
0.620
2.357
0.833
0.680
0.765
MapAnything [ 22 ]
✗
✓
✓
2.731
1.570
2.209
0.892
0.681
0.767
Table 2: Point Map Estimation on DTU. TCO outperforms both the base image-only models and the prior-aware feed-forward methods. The proposed prediction compatibility loss is essential for incorporating priors as a regularization signal from distillation priors into the network.
Method
Compat
Pose
Intr
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
NC. ↑
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Fast3R [ 48 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.096
0.065
0.145
0.093
0.672
0.760
CUT3R [ 44 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.094
0.051
0.101
0.050
0.703
0.804
FLARE [ 53 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.085
0.058
0.142
0.104
0.695
0.779
Pow3R [ 19 ]
✗
✓
✓
0.034
0.019
0.041
0.022
0.763
0.880
MapAnything [ 22 ]
✗
✓
✓
0.026
0.015
0.032
0.018
0.773
0.889
Table 3: Point Map Estimation on 7-Scenes (sparse view). Our method outperforms both the base image-only models and the prior-aware feed-forward methods.
Method
Compat
Pose
Intr
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
NC. ↑
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Fast3R [ 48 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.135
0.091
0.163
0.104
0.759
0.877
CUT3R [ 44 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.104
0.041
0.079
0.031
0.822
0.968
FLARE [ 53 ]
✗
✗
✗
0.053
0.024
0.051
0.025
0.877
0.988
Pow3R [ 19 ]
✗
✓
✓
0.062
0.029
0.062
0.029
0.844
0.983
MapAnything [ 22 ]
✗
✓
✓
0.040
0.024
0.041
0.020
0.875
0.985
Table 4: Point Map Estimation on NRGBD (sparse view). Our method outperforms both the base image-only models and the prior-aware feed-forward methods.
Figure 2: Qualitative Comparison. We compare TCO-VGGT with the base image-only model VGGT and the prior-aware feed-forward methods Pow3R and MapAnything. Overall, TCO-VGGT effectively corrects structural errors in image-only reconstructions by incorporating camera priors. Red , orange , and green circles highlight regions that are wrongly reconstructed, partially corrected, and correctly reconstructed, respectively. In the first row, TCO-VGGT corrects the inaccurate relative positions of two walls in the VGGT reconstruction. The same phenomenon is observed in the second and third rows, where the inaccurate scene structures are corrected. In the last row, TCO-VGGT reconstructs the hand as a whole, whereas VGGT reconstructs it as separate parts. MapAnything reconstructs the hand with blurry boundaries. Additional fine-grained qualitative comparisons with MapAnything and Pow3R are provided in the Supplementary Material.
Stride
Method
Compat
Depth
ATE ↓
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
Pow3R [ 19 ]
✗
✓
0.0172
0.0258
0.4614
1
VGGT [ 43 ]
✗
✗
0.0094
0.0160
0.3781
TCO-VGGT
✓
✓
0.0072
0.0139
0.3731
Pow3R [ 19 ]
✗
✓
0.0201
0.0335
0.7114
4
VGGT [ 43 ]
✗
✗
0.0127
0.0215
0.5706
TCO-VGGT
✓
✓
0.0106
0.0190
0.6026
Table 5: Camera Pose Estimation on ScanNet with different keyframe strides. Our method outperforms both the base image-only models and the prior-aware feed-forward methods.
Setting
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
N.C. ↑
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Fine-tuning strategy
Finetune decoder (Ours)
0.114
0.060
0.116
0.054
0.901
0.984
+ Camera head
0.158
0.107
0.191
0.113
0.864
0.966
+ Depth head
0.162
0.081
0.098
0.054
0.850
0.954
+ Camera + depth head
0.183
0.088
0.195
0.116
0.817
0.937
Table 6: Ablations on ETH3D. We study the fine-tuning strategy and the 2DGS heuristics used in the compatibility objective.
Figure 3: Test-time scaling curve of our method on ETH3D.
Setting
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
N.C. ↑
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
Mean
Med.
VGGT (base)
0.280
0.185
0.305
0.182
0.853
0.950
Rendering loss
Radius scale = 0.5 (def.)
0.114
0.060
0.116
0.054
0.901
0.984
Radius scale = 0.05
0.122
0.066
0.124
0.058
0.895
0.983
Radius scale = 5
0.143
0.072
0.207
0.123
0.871
0.972
Table 7: Ablation: Target view rendering loss and LoRA rank (ETH3D). Acc., Comp., and N.C. are reported (lower is better for Acc./Comp., higher is better for N.C.).
Rot pert. (deg)
Trans pert. (%)
Focal pert. (%)
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
N.C. ↑
VGGT (base)
0.280
0.305
0.853
0
0
0
0.1765
0.1816
0.8822
1
0
0
0.1755
0.1755
0.8791
3
0
0
0.2111
0.2108
0.8669
5
0
0
0.2344
0.2143
0.8569
0
1
0
0.1702
0.1700
0.8790
Table 8: Noise robustness (ETH3D). We report mean Acc., mean Comp., and mean N.C. (lower is better for Acc./Comp., higher is better for N.C.).
Figure 4: Fine-grained Qualitative Results. We compare TCO-VGGT with prior-aware feed-forward methods, including Pow3R and MapAnything. In each grid cell, the predicted geometry is overlaid with the ground truth geometry, whose points are shown in green . Discrepancies between the predicted and ground-truth geometries are highlighted by red double arrows, whose lengths indicate the magnitude of the errors. TCO-VGGT exhibits much smaller discrepancies than MapAnything and Pow3R in both scene structure and boundary regions.
TTT Steps
Render Loss
Avg (s)
Std (s)
Min (s)
Max (s)
0
✗
1.301
0.198
1.104
1.499
10
✗
43.630
0.218
43.412
43.848
10
✓
45.598
0.440
45.158
46.037
40
✓
161.547
1.424
160.123
162.971
Table 9: Test-time training steps vs. time (10 views). The reported times are wall-clock seconds per scene. The image resolution is 392(H) × 518(W). The base model is VGGT. The GPU is NVIDIA TITAN RTX.
Figure 5: 2DGS Rendering Visualization. We visualize the 2DGS rendering process for one scene from 7-Scenes. As shown in the Rendered Image row, our 2DGS heuristic parameterization produces rendered images that closely match the ground-truth images. We also compare the depth maps and normal maps rendered from 2DGS with the corresponding ground-truth depth and normal maps, i.e., those directly predicted from the MVT views.
Recent feed-forward 3D reconstruction transformers have scaled to over a billion parameters, following the broader trend of increasing model capacity in computer vision. Yet emerging evidence suggests that contiguous transformer layers often behave like repeated applications of similar operations, and multi-view reconstruction transformers refine their predictions progressively across decoder depth. We posit that model depth partially buys iteration, paid for inefficiently in unique parameters, and instead make that iteration explicit in architecture. Our model, DéjàView, applies a single looped transformer block recurrently to per-view features for K refinement steps. Trained once, it exposes K as an inference-time compute knob, matching or outperforming substantially larger feed-forward baselines across five reconstruction benchmarks spanning indoor, outdoor, object-centric, and driving scenes, while using a fraction of their parameters and comparable or lower compute. Importantly, the same looped block formulation outperforms an otherwise identical variant with independent per-step parameters under matched training data and compute, suggesting that explicit iteration is not merely a compute-efficient substitute for capacity but a stronger inductive bias for multi-view 3D reconstruction.
Alessandro Burzio, Tobias Fischer, Sven Elflein +9
NVIDIA · University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, AImageLab · ETH Zürich +1
Feed-forward transformer models have recently achieved strong performance in multi-view 3D reconstruction, but they still rely primarily on appearance-based attention and often struggle in dynamic scenes with weak geometric cues. In this work, we introduce a motion- and gravity-aware framework under the Learning Using Privileged Information (LUPI) paradigm. During training, residual optical flow and gravity direction are provided as privileged signals to guide geometric representation learning; during inference, the model uses standard visual inputs only. We integrate these priors into transformer backbones with lightweight architectural changes, preserving feed-forward efficiency. Experiments on standard benchmarks show consistent gains in reconstruction accuracy and robustness, especially in scenes with dynamic objects, ambiguous structure, and challenging camera motion. Our analysis further shows that the optimal injection stage is backbone-dependent: middle-layer integration is generally preferable for VGGT, while late-stage integration is more effective for π3. These results suggest that LUPI offers a practical way to inject motion and physical priors into feed-forward 3D reconstruction without increasing test-time complexity.
Shiyao Qian, Yuan Ren, Dongfeng Bai
Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab, Markham, ON, Canada. · University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Transformer-based 3D reconstruction has emerged as a powerful paradigm for recovering geometry and appearance from multi-view observations, offering strong performance across challenging visual conditions. As these models scale to larger backbones and higher-resolution inputs, improving their efficiency becomes increasingly important for practical deployment. However, modern 3D transformer pipelines face two coupled challenges: dense multi-view attention creates substantial token-mixing overhead, and low-precision execution can destabilize geometry-sensitive representations and degrade depth, pose, and 3D consistency. To address the first challenge, we propose Lite3R, a model-agnostic teacher-student framework that replaces dense attention with Sparse Linear Attention to preserve important geometric interactions while reducing attention cost. To address the second challenge, we introduce a parameter-efficient FP8-aware quantization-aware training (FP8-aware QAT) strategy with partial attention distillation, which freezes the vast majority of pretrained backbone parameters and trains only lightweight linear-branch projection layers, enabling stable low-precision deployment while retaining pretrained geometric priors. We further evaluate Lite3R on two representative backbones, VGGT and DA3-Large, over BlendedMVS and DTU64, showing that it substantially reduces latency (1.7-2.0x) and memory usage (1.9-2.4x) while preserving competitive reconstruction quality overall. These results demonstrate that Lite3R provides an effective algorithm-system co-design approach for practical transformer-based 3D reconstruction. Code: https://github.com/AIGeeksGroup/Lite3R. Website: https://aigeeksgroup.github.io/Lite3R.