Robust 4D Visual Geometry Transformer with Uncertainty-Aware Priors
Authors: Ying Zang, Yidong Han, Chaotao Ding, Yuanqi Hu, Deyi Ji, Qi Zhu, Xuanfu Li, Jin Ma, +3 more
Organizations: Huzhou University · KOKONI 3D, Moxin Technology · Univeristy of Science and Technology of China · Huawei · Zhejiang University · Tongji University
Reconstructing dynamic 4D scenes is an important yet challenging task. While 3D foundation models like VGGT excel in static settings, they often struggle with dynamic sequences where motion causes significant geometric ambiguity. To address this, we present a framework designed to disentangle dynamic and static components by modeling uncertainty across different stages of the reconstruction process. Our approach introduces three synergistic mechanisms: (1) Entropy-Guided Subspace Projection, which leverages information-theoretic weighting to adaptively aggregate multi-head attention distributions, effectively isolating dynamic motion cues from semantic noise; (2) Local-Consistency Driven Geometry Purification, which enforces spatial continuity via radius-based neighborhood constraints to eliminate structural outliers; and (3) Uncertainty-Aware Cross-View Consistency, which formulates multi-view projection refinement as a heteroscedastic maximum likelihood estimation problem, utilizing depth confidence as a probabilistic weight. Experiments on dynamic benchmarks show that our approach outperforms current state-of-the-art methods, reducing Mean Accuracy error by 13.43% and improving segmentation F-measure by 10.49%. Our framework maintains the efficiency of feed-forward inference and requires no task-specific fine-tuning or per-scene optimization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed framwwork.
Method
Accuracy ↓
Completeness ↓
Distance ↓
Pose ↓
Segmentation ↑
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
ATE
JM
FM
MonST3R
0.0378
0.0256
0.1034
0.0698
0.0721
0.0489
0.0198
0.0189
0.1124
DAS3R
0.0362
0.0241
0.0995
0.0672
0.0698
0.0465
0.0189
0.0198
0.1187
CUT3R
0.0355
0.0237
0.0978
0.0658
0.0678
0.0452
0.0185
0.0215
0.1232
Easi3R
0.0425
0.0298
0.1156
0.0812
0.0845
0.0598
0.0215
0.0156
0.0987
VGGT4D
0.0350
0.0233
0.0967
0.0641
0.0659
0.0437
0.0182
0.0207
0.1249
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on DyCheck dataset. Best results in bold, second best underlined. ↓ = lower is better, ↑ = higher is better.
Method
DAVIS-2016
JM ↑
JR ↑
FM ↑
FR ↑
Easi3R dust3r
50.10
55.77
43.40
37.25
Easi3R monst3r
54.93
68.00
45.29
47.30
MonST3R
40.42
40.39
49.54
52.12
DAS3R
41.13
38.67
44.50
36.94
VGGT4D
60.19
78.39
54.81
67.49
Table 2: Comparison on Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on DAVIS-2016 dataset. Best results in bold, second best underlined. ↓ = lower is better, ↑ = higher is better.
Figure 2: Qualitative comparisons of 4D reconstruction.
Figure 3: Qualitative results of dynamic object segmentation.
Configuration
Accuracy ↓
Completeness ↓
Distance ↓
Pose ↓
Segmentation ↑
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
ATE
JM
FM
Baseline
0.0350
0.0233
0.0967
0.0641
0.0659
0.0437
0.0182
0.0207
0.1249
+ Uncertainty-Aware Cross-View Consistency
0.0308
0.0215
0.0866
0.0556
0.0587
0.0386
0.0182
0.0208
0.1255
+ Local-Consistency Driven Geometry Purification
0.0307
0.0215
0.0869
0.0560
0.0588
0.0388
0.0181
0.0209
0.1257
+ Entropy-Guided Subspace Projection
0.0303
0.0210
0.0864
0.0550
0.0583
0.0380
0.0181
0.0226
0.1380
Total Improvement
13.43%
9.87%
10.65%
14.20%
11.53%
13.04%
0.55%
9.18%
10.49%
Table 3: Ablation study in DyCheck dataset. We progressively add each mechanism to the baseline and measure the cumulative improvement across corresponding benchmarks. ↓ = lower is better, ↑ = higher is better.
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, China · Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, China