In this paper, we address the challenging problem of 4D reconstruction from sparse-view videos. This setup usually relies on monocular depth estimation to provide priors for the reconstruction model. A key challenge arises from limited cross-view overlap and temporal variation, making monocular depth predictions inconsistent across views and time. Existing methods align spatial and temporal dimensions in separate stages, requiring foreground segmentation masks while failing to leverage temporal cues for cross-view alignment. Contrary to these methods, we propose a unified spatial-temporal depth alignment framework that jointly resolves cross-view and cross-time inconsistencies without distinguishing foreground/background. Our method represents depth maps across views and time as a set of spatio-temporal neural fields. This representation not only yields fast convergence, but also captures spatio-temporal correlation among depth maps implicitly, without dependence on external segmentation/tracking models. We also propose a multi-view depth-order loss while leveraging the classic scale-and-shift-invariant loss to further improve the final depth quality. The aligned depths initialize and supervise Gaussian splatting models for 4D reconstruction. Experiments on Ego-Exo4D and EgoHuman demonstrate that our improved depth alignment substantially benefits dynamic Gaussian-splatting-based reconstruction methods for novel-time/view synthesis and geometry accuracy/consistency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sparse-view 4D Reconstruction via spatially and temporally aligned monocular depths. Left: given 4-view video streams with minimal overlap, we leverage a unified spatio-temporal depth alignment framework to produce multi-view consistent (top) and temporally coherent (bottom) depth maps. Right : the aligned depth maps serve as both initialization and supervision for 4D reconstruction, substantially improving the quality over state-of-the-art methods, achieving reasonable novel view synthesis even when shifted ∼45∘ from the training view.
Figure 2: Overview of our method. Given monocular depths (estimated from RGB images) and sparse SfM points from sparse synchronized cameras ( left ), we align them jointly across views and time via per-view spatio-temporal neural fields ( Stage 1 ). Each view maintains spatial and depth encodings shared across time, while a per-view deformation MLP predicts depth offsets along ray directions. Temporal variation is captured through low-rank residual weight conditioning ( inset ): each layer’s weights decompose into a shared base plus a compact residual parameterized by per-frame temporal coefficients. The aligned depths initialize and supervise 4D Gaussian splatting for novel-view/time synthesis ( Stage 2 ).
Figure 3: Qualitative analysis of held-out frames of training view on EgoExo4D. Our aligned depth enhances the geometry quality of both MonoFusion and deformable 2DGS, removing ghosting artifacts that are clearly visible in the held-out frames (top two rows), while substantially improving the overall depth quality of deformable 2DGS(bottom two rows).
Full image
Dynamic region
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
AbsRel ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
SOM †
14.73
0.535
0.482
0.843
15.63
0.559
0.450
Dyn3D-GS †
24.28
0.692
0.539
0.612
24.61
0.673
0.384
MV-SOM-DS †
28.37
0.906
0.079
0.398
28.23
0.931
0.063
MV-SOM †
26.91
0.890
0.138
0.474
27.31
0.919
0.078
MonoFusion †
30.43
0.927
0.061
0.290
29.71
0.947
0.017
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on Ego-Exo4D. Baseline results (marked † ) are copied from MonoFusion [ 72 ] . “X + Ours” denotes backend X initialized and supervised with our aligned depths.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
SOM
13.97
0.652
0.645
MV-SOM
13.36
0.588
0.564
SplatFields
17.74
0.675
0.571
MonoFusion
14.15
0.436
0.628
MonoFusion + Ours
20.41
0.612
0.492
(+6.26)
(+.176)
(-.136)
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on EgoHuman. We evaluate novel view synthesis on two sequences from the EgoHuman dataset, substantially outperforming all baselines.
Figure 4: Qualitative analysis of novel view synthesis on EgoExo4D. We show extreme novel view synthesis results ( ∼45∘ from training view), further confirming that our aligned depth consistently benefits the baseline models.
Figure 5: Qualitative Results on the EgoHumans dataset. On the more challenging EgoHumans dataset, our aligned depth helps MonoFusion to recover from catastrophic failure, while significantly improving the novel view rendering quality of deformable 2DGS.
MonoFusion
Def-GS
Configuration
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
(a) Per-frame MAtCha
30.14
0.943
0.070
32.60
0.956
0.071
(b) + time embedding
28.53
0.935
0.088
32.60
0.947
0.071
(c) + residual weights
30.90
0.948
0.067
33.61
0.960
0.055
(d) + Lorder
31.52
0.953
0.065
33.90
0.961
0.055
(e) + Lssi (full)
31.63
0.955
0.064
34.66
0.963
0.049
Table 3: Progressive ablation of alignment components on Ego-Exo4D on two Gaussian splatting backends.
Figure 6: Limitations. While our improved depth consistently enhanced the geometry quality of the different baselines, we note that the naive deformable 2DGS can sometimes become the bottleneck and fail to capture the fast/complex motion. In such a case, MonoFusion, when combined with proper depth initialization/supervision from our method, can produce more reasonable foreground geometry and rendering.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Padding Ratio
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1.0×
25.94
0.924
0.074
1.1×
27.20
0.943
0.060
1.2×
28.25
0.955
0.049
1.4×
29.48
0.958
0.040
MonoFusion †
29.71
0.947
0.017
Appendix
Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of the foreground padding ratio. We evaluate the impact of different padding scales on photometric metrics for dynamic objects. The ratio 1.4× is selected as it yields results most consistent with the baseline values reported in MonoFusion [ 72 ] .
Figure 7: Qualitative Analysis of temporal encoding . We unproject depth maps from one view to demonstrate the effectiveness of our temporal encoding.
Figure 8: Qualitative Analysis depth order loss . For better understanding, we use depth unprojections from 2 opposed views to highlight multi-view consistency.
Method
Reproj. Consistency ↓
Flow-warped Depth ↓
Order Violation ↓
MAtCha
0.585
0.034
9.75%
MonoFusion
0.648
0.016
28.10%
Ours
0.536
0.015
4.84%
Appendix
Table 5: Direct evaluation of depth alignment quality on Ego-Exo4D. Our method improves cross-view reprojection consistency, temporal depth stability, and cross-view depth-order consistency without relying on Gaussian splatting optimization.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
MonoFusion
16.83
0.846
0.514
MonoFusion + Ours
18.49
0.894
0.440
Def-2DGS
16.82
0.825
0.476
Def-2DGS + Ours
19.15
0.906
0.331
Appendix
Table 6: Experiment on an additional Harmony4D scene.
Def-GS
MonoFusion
Configuration
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
(a) Per-frame MAtCha
20.93
0.830
0.305
19.54
0.566
0.516
(b) + residual weights (ours)
21.80
0.804
0.309
19.59
0.590
0.514
(c) + Lorder
22.15
0.815
0.306
19.94
0.583
0.506
(d) + Lssi (full)
22.76
0.856
0.277
20.41
0.612
0.492
Appendix
Table 7: Progressive ablation of alignment components on EgoHuman on two Gaussian splatting backends.
R
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
4
33.76
0.969
0.047
8
34.66
0.963
0.049
16
34.51
0.966
0.045
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation on residual rank R on Ego-Exo4D (Def-2DGS + Ours).
Loss type
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Hinge (ours)
34.66
0.963
0.049
Symmetric L1
34.44
0.966
0.047
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation on Lorder formulation on Ego-Exo4D (Def-2DGS + Ours).
#Cams
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3
Def-2DGS
15.14
0.485
0.630
Def-2DGS + Ours
18.91
0.731
0.417
6
Def-2DGS
18.42
0.645
0.468
Def-2DGS + Ours
21.79
0.842
0.271
Appendix
Table 10: Evaluation under different camera baselines on EgoHuman using Def-2DGS as the backend. The 3- and 6-camera settings roughly correspond to 120∘ and 60∘ camera spacing, respectively.
Figure 9: More qualitative results of novel view synthesis on EgoExo4D.
Figure 10: We initialize and supervise Deformable 2DGS on EgoHuman using depth priors predicted by VGGT.
Dynamic 4D Gaussian Splatting has emerged as an efficient representation for dynamic novel view synthesis through explicit scene modeling and real-time rendering. However, existing methods typically require dense multi-view videos for sufficient geometric constraints, making capture expensive and limiting sparse-camera deployment. Reducing input views lowers acquisition cost but weakens geometry supervision, often causing missing structures and floating Gaussians. Depth priors provide geometric cues, yet no single source offers both dense coverage and reliable geometry. Monocular depth provides dense structure but is scale-ambiguous and locally biased, whereas multi-view geometric depth provides incomplete anchors consistent with the reconstruction coordinate system. To exploit their complementarity, we propose D2-4DGS, a sparse-camera dynamic 4D Gaussian Splatting framework guided by dual-source depth priors. We align monocular estimates with valid multi-view geometric depths and verify their consistency to identify reliable geometric anchors. These verified anchors support consistency-aware pruning and depth supervision, while verified geometric depths and aligned mono-only estimates provide candidate geometry for densification in under-reconstructed regions. Finally, RGB-D joint optimization improves appearance fidelity and geometric consistency under sparse-view supervision. Across all nine dataset--view settings, D2-4DGS achieves the highest PSNR, improving by 1.33 dB on average over the best competing method in each setting.
We present Depth Anything V4 (DAV4), a framework for dynamic 4D scene reconstruction from monocular video. Our key contribution is the application of Riemannian Flow Matching (RFM) to 4D Gaussian Splatting parameters, defining probability paths directly on non-Euclidean manifolds (scale, rotation, opacity), ensuring all intermediate states are valid. Through controlled experiments, we isolate RFM's contribution from test-time optimization (TTO) and pre-training. A deterministic MLP baseline with the same data, architecture, and TTO achieves F-score 0.762; RFM achieves 0.806 - the +0.044 gain is RFM's isolated contribution. We provide corrected computational cost analysis: pre-training is 360 GPU-hours, amortizing for large-scale deployment (over 10,000 scenes). Uncertainty is quantified via Negative Gaussian Log-Likelihood and Expected Calibration Error. DAV4 outperforms prior Depth Anything models and per-scene 4D-GS on dynamic reconstruction and novel-view synthesis, while using no human-annotated depth labels as training losses.
Jiaming Fan, Jian Lu, Jinling Jia +1
College of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications · College of Automation, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Institute of Ad-vanced Technology for Carbon Neutrality, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications
We present a 4D Gaussian Splatting framework for the Sparse-View Track of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2026 Volumetric Video Challenge, which requires dynamic scene reconstruction from only six cameras with wide baselines. To achieve robust dynamic reconstruction under such sparse views, our framework integrates three components. (1) Region-adaptive spatial priors: We use foreground masks to guide Gaussian initialization and mask voting to control densification separately for the dynamic foreground and static background. Background geometry is regularized using monocular depth aligned to metric scale. (2) Motion-consistent temporal priors: We provide supervision at intermediate times through frame interpolation and constrain projected Gaussian motion with estimated optical flow. (3) Generative assistance: We place virtual cameras in the widest angular gaps and restore their rendered images using a diffusion-based model conditioned on camera poses. The restored images are iteratively incorporated into training as pseudo-supervision. On the validation set, our framework improves full-frame PSNR from 25.60 dB for the baseline to 29.75 dB. On the official test benchmark, it achieves 30.04 dB full-frame PSNR and 27.88 dB foreground PSNR, ranking first overall in the Sparse-View Track.
Shengqi Wang, Zhengxian Yang, Kaiwen Tian +6
Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · JD.com, Beijing, China · Beijing MEET YUAN Co., Ltd, Beijing, China