Large-scale multi-view reconstruction models have made remarkable progress, but most existing approaches still rely on fully supervised training with ground-truth 3D/4D annotations. Such annotations are expensive and particularly scarce for dynamic scenes, limiting scalability. We propose SelfEvo, a self-improving framework that continually improves pretrained multi-view reconstruction models using unlabeled videos. SelfEvo introduces a self-distillation scheme using spatiotemporal context asymmetry, enabling self-improvement for learning-based 4D perception without external annotations. We systematically study design choices that make self-improvement effective, including loss signals, forms of asymmetry, and other training strategies. Across eight benchmarks spanning diverse datasets and domains, SelfEvo consistently improves pretrained baselines and generalizes across base models (e.g. VGGT and π3), with significant gains on dynamic scenes. Overall, SelfEvo achieves up to 36.5% relative improvement in video depth estimation and 20.1% in camera estimation, without using any labeled data. Project Page: https://self-evo.github.io/.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: We propose an annotation-free self-improving framework that continually post-trains pretrained multi-view reconstruction models using unlabeled videos. Our method forms an online self-distillation loop where a richer-context teacher provides stop-gradient pseudo targets to a student operating on reduced context, and is updated as an EMA of the student after each step.
Methods
OmniGeo
OmniVideo
scale
scale&shift
scale
scale&shift
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
VGGT [ 59 ]
0.346
0.592
0.180
0.758
0.236
0.713
0.145
0.824
SelfEvo (VGGT)
0.278
0.703
0.124
0.867
0.181
0.792
0.113
0.876
Table 1: New-domain video depth evaluation on OmniGeo and OmniVideo [ 81 ] .
Methods
OmniGeo
OmniVideo
RealEstate10K
AUC@5 ↑
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
AUC@5 ↑
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
AUC@5 ↑
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
VGGT
45.093
64.659
72.649
67.785
83.468
89.743
38.597
66.404
78.833
SelfEvo (VGGT)
58.271
79.034
87.285
75.420
89.132
93.945
48.765
73.324
83.359
Table 2: Camera estimation: new-domain results are reported on OmniGeo and OmniVideo [ 81 ] , and original-domain retention is evaluated on RealEstate10K [ 80 ] .
Method
Align
Sintel
Bonn
KITTI
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
VGGT [ 59 ]
scale
0.300
0.641
0.055
0.971
0.074
0.960
SelfEvo (VGGT)
0.283
0.707
0.046
0.977
0.047
0.981
VGGT [ 59 ]
scale& shift
0.227
0.684
0.049
0.974
0.059
0.961
SelfEvo (VGGT)
0.212
0.692
0.044
0.977
0.042
0.979
Table 3: Video Depth Estimation on original domains: Sintel [ 5 ] , Bonn [ 43 ] and KITTI [ 21 ] .
Model
Train/Eval: DROID
Train/Eval: BEDLAM2.0
Video Depth
Camera
Video Depth
scale
scale&shift
AUC@5 ↑
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
scale
scale&shift
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
VGGT
0.306
0.597
0.294
0.645
77.22
91.79
95.84
0.110
0.921
0.086
0.934
SelfEvo (VGGT)
0.254
0.656
0.223
0.733
86.48
95.38
97.68
0.072
0.954
0.051
0.959
π3
0.271
0.670
0.252
0.709
77.58
92.19
96.08
0.034
0.982
0.028
0.981
Table 4: Generality across base models and training data. We apply our self-improvement framework to VGGT and π3 on two training sources without using annotation. Left: self-improve on DROID and evaluate video depth on DROID. Right: self-improve on BEDLAM2.0 and evaluate video depth and camera on BEDLAM2.0.
Figure 3: Visual result on unseen-domain data, including animal motion, robotics and ego-centric.
Figure 4: Qualitative results for camera and geometry on in the wild videos.
Methods
DROID
HOI4D
scale
scale&shift
scale
scale&shift
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
VGGT [ 59 ]
0.306
0.597
0.294
0.645
0.044
0.957
0.041
0.966
SelfEvo (VGGT)
0.268
0.659
0.237
0.724
0.030
0.988
0.031
0.987
Table 5: unseen domain evaluation. unseen domain evaluation for VGGT self-improved on OmniWorld-Game [ 81 ] and then evaluate on DROID [ 29 ] and HOI4D [ 35 ] .
Dataset
Methods
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniGeo
aug-stu
0.347
0.619
0.148
0.824
66.476
75.675
aug-all
0.364
0.607
0.150
0.820
64.432
73.890
cropping
0.384
0.605
0.147
0.829
64.262
75.990
dropping
0.296
0.682
0.127
0.862
75.317
84.323
Table 6: Ablation of asymmetry mechanisms on VGGT. “aug-stu” augments student inputs only, while “aug-all” augments both the teacher and student inputs.
Dataset
Methods
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniGeo
keep-top
0.347
0.619
0.148
0.824
71.423
80.903
keep-bottom
0.364
0.607
0.150
0.820
78.521
87.013
random
0.278
0.703
0.124
0.867
79.034
87.285
Table 7: Ablation of frame selection strategy on VGGT.
Dataset
Mode
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniGeo
offline
0.357
0.615
0.150
0.817
64.618
74.939
online
0.278
0.703
0.124
0.867
79.034
87.285
Table 8: Ablation of online supervision. We self-improve on OmniWorld-Game [ 81 ] and evaluate on its benchmark OmniGeo.
Mode
Droid [ 29 ]
Bonn [ 43 ]
scale
scale & shift
scale
scale & shift
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Pretrain (baseline)
0.306
0.597
0.294
0.645
0.055
0.971
0.049
0.974
SFT (Offline)
0.281
0.658
0.264
0.692
0.081
0.895
0.073
0.940
SelfEvo (Online)
0.285
0.622
0.243
0.703
0.049
0.973
0.044
0.976
Table 9: Role of Online Supervision in OOD transfer after target domain adaptation. We compare Pretrain (baseline), SFT (Offline, fully supervised fine-tuning on the target domain) and SelfEvo (Online, unlabeled self-improvement).
Dataset
Methods
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniGeo
freeze-D
0.325
0.654
0.134
0.851
77.982
86.540
freeze-A
0.370
0.613
0.162
0.793
62.270
71.497
freeze-C&D
0.307
0.669
0.133
0.855
77.511
86.236
train-all
0.292
0.696
0.125
0.865
78.704
86.807
Table 10: Ablation of training recipe on VGGT. freeze-A/C/D denotes freezing the aggregator, camera head, or depth head, respectively; freeze-C&D freezes both heads; train-all updates all modules. Our default is freeze-C (ours).
Figure 5: Context improves feedforward reconstruction quality. Starting from two temporally distant anchor frames, we progressively add intermediate frames as context and evaluate performance only on the anchors. As the number of input views increases, the overall covisibility increases, while both pointmap and pose errors decrease.
Dataset
Methods
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniVideo
aug-stu
0.211
0.759
0.125
0.857
86.602
92.303
aug-all
0.202
0.740
0.129
0.851
85.970
91.851
cropping
0.228
0.714
0.136
0.841
82.299
90.405
dropping
0.173
0.810
0.111
0.879
87.611
92.480
Appendix
Table 12: OmniVideo counterpart of the asymmetry ablation on VGGT. “aug-stu” augments student inputs only, while “aug-all” augments both the teacher and student inputs.
Dataset
Methods
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniVideo
random
0.181
0.792
0.113
0.876
89.132
93.945
keep-top
0.329
0.632
0.133
0.853
86.602
92.303
keep-bottom
0.271
0.713
0.130
0.850
85.970
91.851
probabilistic
0.268
0.698
0.126
0.866
82.299
90.405
Appendix
Table 13: OmniVideo counterpart of the frame selection ablation on VGGT.
Dataset
Mode
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniVideo
offline
0.244
0.703
0.145
0.818
85.684
91.793
online
0.181
0.792
0.113
0.876
89.132
93.945
Appendix
Table 14: OmniVideo counterpart of the online supervision ablation. We self-improve on OmniWorld-Game [ 81 ] and evaluate on its benchmark OmniVideo.
Dataset
Methods
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniVideo
freeze-C(ours)
0.181
0.792
0.113
0.876
89.132
93.945
freeze-D
0.193
0.761
0.118
0.869
89.281
93.983
freeze-A
0.263
0.672
0.157
0.800
82.531
89.174
freeze-C&D
0.197
0.752
0.116
0.873
88.468
93.517
Appendix
Table 15: OmniVideo counterpart of the training recipe ablation on VGGT. freeze-A/C/D denotes freezing the aggregator, camera head, or depth head, respectively; freeze-C&D freezes both heads; train-all updates all modules. Our default is freeze-C (ours).
Dataset
Mode
Video Depth
Camera
scale
scale&shift
AUC@15 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
Abs Rel ↓
δ<1.25↑
OmniVideo
+Lfeat
0.182
0.783
0.114
0.873
89.146
93.840
base
0.181
0.792
0.113
0.876
89.132
93.945
Appendix
Table 16: OmniVideo counterpart of the supervision form ablation. +Lfeat adds a feature matching loss.
Figure 6: Checkpoint-wise depth evaluation on the held-out OmniGeo benchmark. We retrospectively evaluate all training checkpoints of SelfEvo(VGGT) on OmniGeo after training is completed. Top row: scale alignment; bottom row: scale-and-shift alignment. Left: δ<1.25 (higher is better); right: Abs Rel (lower is better). The horizontal gray line denotes the pretrained VGGT baseline. Across both alignment settings, self-improvement leads to substantial gains over the pretrained model throughout training, showing self-improvement on held-out depth benchmarks.
Figure 7: Checkpoint-wise depth evaluation on the held-out OmniVideo benchmark. We retrospectively evaluate all training checkpoints of SelfEvo(VGGT) on OmniVideo after training is completed. Top row: scale alignment; bottom row: scale-and-shift alignment. Left: δ<1.25 (higher is better); right: Abs Rel (lower is better). The horizontal gray line denotes the pretrained VGGT baseline. The curves show clear and sustained improvement across checkpoints, with rapid gains in the early stage and mild saturation later, again supporting self-improvement on depth benchmarks.
Figure 8: Checkpoint-wise camera evaluation on held-out OmniGeo and OmniVideo benchmarks. We retrospectively evaluate all training checkpoints of SelfEvo(VGGT) after training is completed. Top row: OmniGeo; bottom row: OmniVideo. Left: AUC@15; right: AUC@30. Higher is better for all metrics. The horizontal gray line denotes the pretrained VGGT baseline. Camera estimation improves consistently throughout training on both held-out benchmarks, further demonstrating the self-improvement ability of our framework beyond depth prediction alone.
Figure 9: Qualitative results on additional training sources. We further apply SelfEvo to VGGT using two additional unlabeled video sources beyond our main setup: DynPose-100K and Egocentric-10K. The first three examples show results after training on a very small fully in-the-wild subset of DynPose-100K, using only 85 internet videos, while the last example shows results after training on egocentric data. In each pair, the left result is from the pretrained VGGT model and the right result is from SelfEvo(VGGT) .
Recent depth foundation models like Depth Anything 3 (DA3) achieve remarkable multi-view depth estimation but assume static 3D scenes, limiting their applicability to real-world dynamic environments. Existing training-free 4D methods like Easi3R and VGGT4D rely on correspondence-trained backbones whose attention encodes cross-frame matching, a property absent in depth-only models like DA3. We present Dyna3, a training-free framework that extends DA3 for 4D dynamic scene reconstruction without any fine-tuning. Our key insight is that DA3's cross-view features, though trained only for depth consistency, implicitly encode motion-discriminative signals when combined with best-match feature search across frames. Its static surfaces find consistent matches globally, while dynamic objects cannot. We further adopt vision-language models (VLM) to automatically generate scene-specific semantic prompts for SAM 3, enabling precise instance-level segmentation that distinguishes which objects move from what objects exist. For reconstruction, we decouple the scene into a cross-frame aligned static background and per-frame dynamic point clouds. Experiments on four datasets demonstrate that Dyna3 surpasses correspondence-trained methods with +5.5pp J-Mean over state-of-the-art VGGT4D on dynamic object segmentation, while achieving up to 13x faster pose estimation and 3x faster 4D reconstruction with 4 to 8x lower memory. Dyna3 could therefore enable much denser temporal sampling that prior methods cannot support.
Xinhao Xiang, Weiyang Li, Zhijie Zheng +2
IFM Lab, University of California, Davis, CA, USA · Genies Inc., CA, USA
Reconstructing dynamic 4D scenes from monocular videos is a fundamental yet challenging task. While recent 3D foundation models provide strong geometric priors, their performance significantly degrades in dynamic environments. This degradation stems from a fundamental tension: the inherent coupling of camera ego-motion and object motion within global attention mechanisms. In this paper, we propose a novel, training-free progressive decoupling framework that disentangles dynamics from statics in a principled, coarse-to-fine manner. Our core insight is to resolve the tension by first stabilizing the camera pose, followed by geometric refinement. Specifically, our approach consists of three synergistic components: (1) a Dynamic-Mask-Guided Pose Decoupling module that isolates pose estimation from dynamic interference, yielding a stable motion-free reference frame; (2) a Topological Subspace Surgery mechanism that orthogonally decomposes the depth manifold, safely preserving dynamic objects while injecting refined, mask-aware geometry into static regions; and (3) an Information-Theoretic Confidence-Aware Fusion strategy that formulates depth integration as a heteroscedastic Bayesian inference problem, adaptively blending multi-pass predictions via inverse-variance weighting. Extensive experiments on standard 4D reconstruction benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves consistent and substantial improvements across principal point-cloud metrics. Notably, our approach shows competitive performance in robust 4D scene reconstruction without requiring fine-tuning, suggesting the potential of mathematically grounded dynamic-static disentanglement.
Ying Zang, Xuanyi Liu, Yidong Han +9
4Huzhou University · 2Peking University · 1KOKONI 3D, Moxin Technology +4
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