What makes a good viewpoint? The quality of the data used to learn 3D reconstructions is crucial for enabling efficient and accurate scene modeling. We study the active view selection problem and develop a principled analysis that yields a simple and interpretable criterion for selecting informative camera poses. Our key insight is that informative views can be obtained by minimizing a tractable approximation of the Fisher Information Gain, which reduces to favoring viewpoints that cover geometry that has been insufficiently observed by past cameras. This leads to a lightweight coverage-based view selection metric that avoids expensive transmittance estimation and is robust to noise and training dynamics. We call this metric COVER (Camera Optimization for View Exploration and Reconstruction). We integrate our method into the Nerfstudio framework and evaluate it on real datasets within fixed and embodied data acquisition scenarios. Across multiple datasets and radiance-field baselines, our method consistently improves reconstruction quality compared to state-of-the-art active view selection methods. Additional visualizations and our Nerfstudio package can be found at https://chengine.github.io/nbv_gym/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: COVER is a simple, performant, and from-first-principles view selection metric that can be batch-queried in real-time and rendered into an image for visualization. The view metric measures the difference between perspective candidate cameras and cameras in the training dataset. Candidate viewpoints that cover large parts of the scene and are under-covered by the training cameras are selected and added to the training dataset to improve the quality of the 3 D scene reconstruction.
Figure 2: Renders of 3 DGS models trained under different view selection metrics. Images are from the evaluation set and not seen during training. We find that our coverage metric is at least as good as random and superior to FisherRF. We highlight lower coverage regions in the random baseline in red . Additional visual comparisons and visualization of the view selection process can be found on our webpage and in Appendix D .
Figure 3: Image-based metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS) across several scenes for five view selection methods: Bayes’ Rays , FisherRF , Random , COVER , and an infeasible oracle (black) trained with all training images.
Dataset
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Tanks & Temples
Bayes’ Rays
15.03
0.43
0.62
FisherRF
20.26
0.71
0.23
Random
21.12
0.75
0.20
CONVERGE (Ours)
21.52
0.76
0.19
Mip-NeRF
Bayes’ Rays
18.81
0.45
0.63
FisherRF
24.92
0.78
0.19
Table 1: Image metrics of different view-selection methods at 30K steps across different datasets.
Setting
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
All
Splatfacto
24.83
0.79
0.16
Embodied
Random
22.48
0.71
0.23
Fisher-RF
22.27
0.70
0.24
CONVERGE (Ours)
23.21
0.73
0.20
Sparse
Random
22.81
0.72
0.21
Fisher-RF
21.74
0.68
0.26
Table 2: Image metrics across different view-selection settings at 30K steps, averaged over all scenes. Splatfacto, with access to all views, serves as the infeasible upper-bound.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Scene
Method
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
SSIM ↑
Δ SSIM
LPIPS ↓
Δ LPIPS
Ignatius
Bayes’ Rays
16.71
-0.24
0.43
-0.12
0.56
0.24
FisherRF
18.01
-0.56
0.59
-0.03
0.31
0.02
Random
18.45
–
0.64
–
0.28
–
CONVERGE (Ours)
19.40
0.45
0.67
0.01
0.27
-0.01
Train
Bayes’ Rays
12.70
-1.85
0.45
-0.07
0.73
0.28
FisherRF
15.03
-0.77
0.57
-0.04
0.39
0.04
Appendix
Table 3: Image metrics across several view selection metrics for the Tanks and Temples dataset after 10 K gradient steps. Two scenes are visualized, while averages are computed across the entire dataset.
Scene
Method
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
SSIM ↑
Δ SSIM
LPIPS ↓
Δ LPIPS
Shiny
Bayes’ Rays
13.08
-1.43
0.31
-0.09
0.88
0.29
FisherRF
13.69
-1.35
0.38
-0.05
0.58
0.07
Random
15.47
–
0.46
–
0.47
–
CONVERGE (Ours)
16.49
0.76
0.49
0.02
0.43
-0.03
Space
Bayes’ Rays
11.70
-1.74
0.20
-0.13
0.85
0.34
FisherRF
13.94
-0.55
0.39
-0.03
0.46
0.03
Appendix
Table 4: Image metrics across several view selection metrics for the custom dataset after 10 K gradient steps. Two scenes are visualized, while averages are computed across the entire dataset.
Scene
Method
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
SSIM ↑
Δ SSIM
LPIPS ↓
Δ LPIPS
Counter
Bayes’ Rays
19.74
-2.51
0.61
-0.15
0.55
0.30
FisherRF
22.22
-1.66
0.79
-0.04
0.25
0.04
Random
24.06
–
0.83
–
0.22
–
CONVERGE (Ours)
25.24
0.71
0.86
0.02
0.18
-0.02
Garden
Bayes’ Rays
17.62
-5.32
0.31
-0.31
0.77
0.51
FisherRF
23.73
-0.95
0.72
-0.04
0.21
0.03
Appendix
Table 5: Image metrics across several view selection metrics for the MipNeRF360 dataset after 10 K gradient steps. Two scenes are visualized, while averages are computed across the entire dataset.
Scene
Method
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
SSIM ↑
Δ SSIM
LPIPS ↓
Δ LPIPS
Ignatius
Bayes’ Rays
17.10
-2.06
0.46
-0.20
0.45
0.25
FisherRF
20.95
-0.28
0.71
-0.03
0.22
0.02
Random
20.89
–
0.72
–
0.21
–
CONVERGE (Ours)
21.53
0.68
0.73
0.02
0.20
-0.01
Train
Bayes’ Rays
13.04
-4.21
0.46
-0.20
0.70
0.41
FisherRF
18.93
-1.34
0.72
-0.06
0.25
0.07
Appendix
Table 6: Image metrics across several view selection metrics for the Tanks and Temples dataset after 30 K gradient steps. Two scenes are visualized, while averages are computed across the entire dataset.
Scene
Method
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
SSIM ↑
Δ SSIM
LPIPS ↓
Δ LPIPS
Shiny
Bayes’ Rays
13.38
-3.08
0.30
-0.17
0.86
0.42
FisherRF
16.97
-1.59
0.52
-0.06
0.41
0.09
Random
18.27
–
0.56
–
0.33
–
CONVERGE (Ours)
18.41
0.59
0.58
0.02
0.31
-0.03
Space
Bayes’ Rays
11.76
-3.85
0.19
-0.27
0.83
0.46
FisherRF
18.16
-0.28
0.58
-0.02
0.29
0.03
Appendix
Table 7: Image metrics across several view selection metrics for the custom dataset after 30 K gradient steps. Two scenes are visualized, while averages are computed across the entire dataset.
Scene
Method
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
SSIM ↑
Δ SSIM
LPIPS ↓
Δ LPIPS
Counter
Bayes’ Rays
20.39
-4.90
0.62
-0.22
0.48
0.32
FisherRF
26.35
-1.73
0.87
-0.04
0.17
0.04
Random
27.51
–
0.89
–
0.15
–
CONVERGE (Ours)
27.96
0.79
0.90
0.02
0.14
-0.02
Garden
Bayes’ Rays
19.28
-7.33
0.33
-0.44
0.75
0.59
FisherRF
27.77
-1.01
0.85
-0.04
0.12
0.03
Appendix
Table 8: Image metrics across several view selection metrics for the MipNeRF360 dataset after 30 K gradient steps. Two scenes are visualized, while averages are computed across the entire dataset.
Setting
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Embodied + Sparse
Equation 17
21.95
0.695
0.251
Gradient
21.77
0.701
0.275
Coverage
22.39
0.707
0.244
Appendix
Table 9: Image metrics across different view-selection methods at 30K steps, averaged over all scenes.
Figure 4: Comparison of different view metrics in the space scene.
Figure 5: Comparison of different view metrics in the chair scene.
We develop a framework for task-specific active next-best-view selection in 3D reconstruction from point clouds, by casting the problem in the language of Bayesian decision theory. Our framework works by (a) placing a prior distribution over the space of implicit surfaces, (b) using recently-developed stochastic surface reconstruction methods to calculate the resulting posterior distribution, then (c) using the posterior distribution to carefully reason about which view to scan next. This enables us to perform camera selection in a manner that is directly optimized for the intended use of the reconstructed data - meaning, we reduce uncertainty only in those regions that make a difference in the task at hand, as opposed to prior approaches that reduce it uniformly across space. We evaluate our method across three distinct downstream tasks: semantic classification, segmentation, and PDE-guided physics simulation. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves superior task performance with fewer views compared to commonly used baselines and prior general uncertainty-reduction techniques.
Jingsen Zhu, Silvia Sellán, Alexander Terenin
Cornell University, USA · Columbia University, USA
Active 3D reconstruction relies on active view selection to maximize reconstruction fidelity under limited capture budgets. However, most existing methods rely on surrogate signals such as parameter uncertainty or geometric heuristics, but these signals are often misaligned with the ultimate goal: the fidelity of rendered predictions. We propose GO-PRE, a goal-oriented next-best-view selection framework that explicitly targets information gain in the prediction space. Specifically, we formulate the objective as maximizing the reduction of the average marginal predictive entropy over a user-specified target view manifold. GO-PRE supports interactive goal specification and yields an efficient acquisition rule that enables real-time computation of information gain. Extensive experiments across benchmarks demonstrate that GO-PRE consistently improves active reconstruction performance and provides more reliable uncertainty quantification compared to state-of-the-art methods.
Yan Song, Zhihao Li, Chenglong Li +3
College of Intelligent Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · School of Software, Shandong University, Jinan, China · School of Data Science and Engineering, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
How can a 3D reconstruction system acquire and retain useful information to understand the geometry of a scene from partial views under a limited computation budget? Existing active view acquisition methods typically estimate uncertainty over observed or instantiated geometry, limiting their ability to reason about unseen structure, while long-horizon reconstruction methods often retain redundant observations. We introduce Matisse, a training-free framework that unifies active reconstruction and keyframe selection by leveraging evidence provided by a pretrained generative 3D model. Matisse estimates Evidential Uncertainty from cross-attention evidence associated with 3D latent tokens and derives an Evidential Information Gain to guide both view acquisition and keyframe selection based on the expected reduction in posterior entropy. Matisse supports multi-object scenes through occlusion-aware, object-balanced aggregation and propagates uncertainty through intermediate latents to avoid full reconstruction during planning. Matisse reduces Chamfer distance by 12.7%, 3.8%, and 9.2% on GSO30, YCB-V, and Replica, respectively, relative to the best baseline on each dataset, and achieves a 1.50× end-to-end speedup over the best active reconstruction baseline on GSO30 with the same reconstruction backend. In the GSO30 keyframe selection experiment for long-horizon reconstruction, Matisse achieves comparable Chamfer distance using 14% of the input views compared with Stream3D.
Xihang Yu, Kaichen Zhou, Lorenzo Shaikewitz +4
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · National University of Singapore