Organizations: Mathematical Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China · School of Mathematics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China · Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA · Semi-tensor Product of Matrices: Theory and Applications, School of Mathematics and Systems Science, Liaocheng University, Liaocheng 252000, China
Tube-wise video completion reconstructs temporal trajectories at spatial locations unobserved in every frame. We propose a two-stage framework combining regularized masked Kronecker product decomposition (KPD) with cross-fitted self-supervised residual learning. First, we estimate a compact structural backbone directly from observed entries using cyclic component-wise least-squares updates, spatial and temporal factor regularization, and regularizer-optimal scale balancing. The exact updates yield a nonincreasing objective. Second, we address the mismatch between in-sample fitting errors and the prediction errors encountered at missing tubes. We partition observed tubes into folds and construct residual targets using backbone models fitted without the corresponding target tubes. A lightweight 3-D convolutional neural network then predicts corrections from the backbone, visible residual context, observation mask, and local detail features. Exact data consistency preserves observed measurements. Experiments include ablations, sensitivity analysis, grayscale and RGB video completion, and structured missing patterns. Our method achieves the highest mean PSNR and SSIM at the higher tested sampling rates on the grayscale benchmark. On eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences, it achieves the highest mean missing-region PSNR and full-frame SSIM and the lowest mean missing-tube temporal-gradient MAE at every evaluated sampling rate.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Fidelity–storage tradeoff of four low-rank representation families on the three development sequences (Akiyo, Foreman, and Mobile): (a) average approximation PSNR and (b) average approximation SSIM versus the normalized storage ratio in ( 18 ). For each method, the sequence-level curves are averaged only over the storage interval shared by all three videos. Stars mark the K=4 KPD-backbone operating point used in the completion experiments.
Fig. 2: Proposed structure–residual video-completion framework. Stage I fits a compact KPD backbone directly to the observed entries. Stage II constructs cross-fitted residual supervision, predicts the missing-tube correction with a lightweight 3-D CNN, and applies exact data consistency to obtain X .
Parameter
23-video grayscale
DAVIS 360p RGB
KPD rank K
4
12
Masked KPD sweeps S
12
same
Spatial penalty λs
5×10−3
same
Temporal penalty λt
5×10−2
same
Tikhonov λ0
10−5
same
Cross-fitting folds F
5
same
TABLE I: Fixed hyperparameter configurations for the grayscale and DAVIS RGB benchmarks. Parameters marked as “same” use the grayscale setting.
Method
Akiyo
Foreman
Mobile
Val. MAE ↓
Avg. PSNR ↑
Avg. SSIM ↑
KPD
22.989/0.5589
19.348/0.4286
16.002/0.3591
0.092783
19.446
0.4488
Simple
24.801/0.6565
25.462/0.7554
19.050/0.5687
0.056637
23.104
0.6602
Direct
26.280/0.7282
25.539/0.7670
20.464/0.6998
0.049610
24.095
0.7317
CrossFit
26.972/0.7465
25.771/0.7859
20.397/0.6936
0.047503
24.380
0.7420
TABLE II: Residual-supervision ablation at SR=0.2 and K=4 . Sequence entries are full-video PSNR/frame-wise full-frame SSIM; validation MAE is averaged over the three development sequences. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Fig. 3: Stage-wise visual ablation at SR=0.3 : ground truth, observed input, KPD backbone, simple residual propagation, and CrossFit reconstruction. A common ROI is enlarged within each sequence.
Input
Val. MAE ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Δ PSNR
B
0.092944
19.360
0.4561
–
BR
0.060328
22.354
0.6447
+2.994
BRM
0.050618
23.944
0.7073
+1.590
FULL
0.047503
24.380
0.7420
+0.436
TABLE III: Residual-network input ablation on the three development sequences at SR=0.2 . PSNR is computed over the full reconstructed video and SSIM is averaged frame-wise over the full frames.
Method
SR=0.1
SR=0.2
SR=0.3
SR=0.4
SR=0.5
Avg. Time (s) ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
DRO-TFF [ 40 ]
15.091
0.1628
18.804
0.3365
22.227
0.5120
24.787
0.6381
27.010
0.7389
7.79
HLRTF [ 35 ]
20.887
0.4819
23.626
0.6408
25.565
0.7290
26.987
0.7757
28.425
0.8209
7.17
KBR [ 30 ]
17.867
0.3324
21.009
0.5127
24.428
0.6759
27.880
0.8134
30.010
0.8993
154.21
LRTFR [ 39 ]
21.793
0.5238
24.549
0.6893
26.419
0.7784
28.011
0.8378
29.597
0.8807
7.38
OTLRM [ 41 ]
19.805
0.4408
24.052
0.6616
25.194
0.7195
26.664
0.7809
28.653
0.8436
80.91
TABLE IV: Average PSNR/SSIM on the 23-video benchmark at five tube sampling rates, with mean wall-clock time per sequence. Best and second-best values are bold and underlined.
Fig. 4: Visual comparison at SR=0.3 on Foreman and Mobile. Common frames and ROIs show detail recovery in both sequences.
Fig. 5: Sensitivity on the three grayscale development sequences at SR=0.2 : (a) KPD rank, (b) cross-fitting folds, (c) optimization steps, (d) spatial regularization, and (e) temporal regularization. Stars mark the selected settings.
Fig. 6: Qualitative RGB comparison on DAVIS 2017 at SR=0.3 for three representative sequences: Bear, Drift-chicane, and Cows. Each row uses fixed ROIs across methods. PSNR values are computed over the missing tubes of the full sequence.
Fig. 7: Mean PSNR, SSIM, and missing-tube temporal-gradient MAE (T-MAE) versus sampling rate for (a) the 23-video grayscale benchmark and (b) eight selected DAVIS 360p RGB sequences. Thick lines identify Ours. T-MAE measures the error in frame-to-frame intensity differences at missing tubes ( 73 ). DAVIS curves use per-sequence measurements; grayscale curves use the recorded benchmark statistics.
Method
(a) Representative sequences ( SR=0.3 )
(b) Mean over eight sequences
Bear
Drift-chicane
Cows
SR=0.2
SR=0.3
SR=0.4
DRO-TFF [ 40 ]
22.96 / 0.652 0.05461
23.36 / 0.428 0.00883
19.78 / 0.527 0.06434
20.65 / 0.419 0.05233
23.25 / 0.615 0.04917
24.04 / 0.701 0.04842
HLRTF [ 35 ]
24.11 / 0.733 0.05164
29.51 / 0.846 0.00777
21.86 / 0.640 0.06312
23.95 / 0.640 0.04856
25.26 / 0.740 0.04419
25.94 / 0.791 0.04177
KBR [ 30 ]
25.99 / 0.811 0.04833
27.95 / 0.750 0.00707
24.29 / 0.765 0.05631
25.06 / 0.691 0.04038
27.34 / 0.814 0.03505
28.81 / 0.882 0.03024
LRTFR [ 39 ]
24.01 / 0.732 0.05276
28.31 / 0.792 0.00766
23.40 / 0.724 0.05933
24.06 / 0.664 0.04876
24.89 / 0.744 0.04687
25.58 / 0.806 0.04511
OTLRM [ 41 ]
22.85 / 0.699 0.06662
29.54 / 0.847 0.00808
20.97 / 0.612 0.08274
24.69 / 0.685 0.04926
25.16 / 0.736 0.04853
25.97 / 0.795 0.04510
TABLE V: DAVIS 360p RGB reconstruction results. (a) Three representative sequences at SR=0.3 ; (b) mean results over eight selected sequences. Each entry reports missing-region PSNR (dB) / full-frame SSIM on the first line and missing-tube temporal-gradient MAE on the second line. Best and second-best results for each metric are bold and underlined, respectively.
Fig. 8: Structured-mask RGB visual comparisons on Coastguard and Container: (a) contiguous block and (b) distributed grid missingness. The observed input, reconstructions, and ground truth are shown with common regions of interest for each video and mask.
Method
Mask
Coastguard
Container
DRO-TFF [ 40 ]
Block
15.52 / 0.9447
19.57 / 0.9456
Grid
20.35 / 0.9408
16.69 / 0.9028
HLRTF [ 35 ]
Block
15.97 / 0.9473
20.81 / 0.9639
Grid
7.46 / 0.8076
4.84 / 0.7848
KBR [ 30 ]
Block
19.74 / 0.9658
23.32 / 0.9762
Grid
16.54 / 0.8941
14.89 / 0.9216
TABLE VI: Structured-mask RGB completion on Coastguard and Container (about 6% missing tubes). Each result reports missing-region PSNR (dB) / full-frame SSIM. Best and second-best values for each video and mask are bold and underlined, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Rank K
Conv3D kernel (t,h,w)
Missing PSNR ↑
Full SSIM ↑
4
3×3×3
27.1250
0.8510
4
3×5×5
27.1250
0.8500
8
3×3×3
27.3964
0.8589
8
3×5×5
26.7135
0.8393
12
3×3×3
27.6069
0.8638
12
3×5×5
26.8058
0.8408
Appendix
TABLE I: Rank and spatial-kernel sensitivity on Blackswan ( 360×640×50 , RGB; SR=0.3 ). The hidden width and training budget are fixed at h=12 and 1200 steps.
Fig. 1: Missing-region PSNR versus KPD rank for two spatial convolutional kernel sizes on the designated development sequence. All other settings are fixed as in Table I .
Rank K
Width h
Missing PSNR ↑
Full SSIM ↑
Time (s)
12
12
27.6069
0.8638
832.7
12
24
27.7573
0.8722
833.5
12
32
27.8172
0.8734
833.3
16
12
27.5599
0.8616
1088.5
20
12
27.6258
0.8626
1344.0
24
12
27.5880
0.8610
1594.7
Appendix
TABLE II: KPD-rank and CNN-width sensitivity on Blackswan at SR=0.3 , with a 3×3×3 kernel and 1200 steps. Reported runtimes are measured end to end for each video (seconds).
Setting
Steps
Spatial patch
Missing PSNR ↑
Full SSIM ↑
A0
1200
48×48
27.8172
0.8734
S2
2400
48×48
28.2571
0.8884
P64
2400
64×64
28.6947
0.8976
P96
2400
96×96
28.7211
0.8997
S3
3600
48×48
28.8627
0.9027
C1
3600
64×64
28.8469
0.9018
Appendix
TABLE III: Training-budget and patch-size study on Blackswan at SR=0.3 ; K=12 , h=32 , and a 3×3×3 kernel are fixed. All patches have temporal length 16 .
Fig. 2: Sensitivity to the optimization budget at three training-patch sizes on the development sequence. Curves connect only the evaluated configurations.
Method
Median time (s)
DRO-TFF
98.2
HLRTF
62.6
KBR
2851.5
LRTFR
45.4
OTLRM
434.1
TNN
926.1
Appendix
TABLE IV: Median wall-clock time (seconds) per reconstructed RGB video in the comparison of eight selected sequences. Times are measured using the original CPU/GPU implementations.
Sequence
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
18.49
23.21
24.59
23.40
22.46
22.72
24.88
24.31
26.85
drift-chicane
21.87
28.12
23.38
27.24
28.95
26.86
27.33
28.78
29.89
cows
16.16
20.98
22.75
22.61
20.79
19.85
22.80
23.21
24.47
dog
24.78
25.32
29.07
24.47
26.83
23.83
28.55
29.43
29.97
camel
17.06
21.85
22.39
22.68
22.45
20.75
23.93
24.15
24.50
kite-surf
25.26
27.22
30.52
26.92
28.83
26.33
30.33
29.71
30.88
Appendix
TABLE V: Missing-region PSNR (dB) on the eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences at SR=0.2 . Best and second-best values per sequence are bold and underlined.
Sequence
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
22.96
24.11
25.99
24.01
22.85
24.20
26.04
25.17
27.75
drift-chicane
23.36
29.51
27.95
28.31
29.54
28.22
29.20
29.57
31.00
cows
19.78
21.86
24.29
23.40
20.97
21.04
24.05
24.14
25.47
dog
25.50
26.92
30.74
25.25
27.39
25.32
30.10
30.63
31.18
camel
21.66
23.02
25.15
23.25
21.76
22.17
25.07
25.12
25.46
kite-surf
27.64
28.23
31.99
27.42
29.67
27.66
31.71
30.70
32.01
Appendix
TABLE VI: Missing-region PSNR (dB) on the eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences at SR=0.3 . Best and second-best values per sequence are bold and underlined.
Sequence
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
23.51
24.72
27.24
24.50
23.88
25.34
26.95
25.84
28.57
drift-chicane
24.54
29.55
30.39
29.43
30.69
29.29
30.69
29.95
32.28
cows
21.98
22.31
25.44
23.93
21.31
22.04
25.05
24.86
26.04
dog
25.60
27.85
32.38
25.92
28.17
26.64
31.46
31.51
32.30
camel
22.26
23.69
26.28
23.60
22.75
23.27
25.98
25.82
26.04
kite-surf
27.91
29.14
33.38
27.79
30.06
28.78
32.90
31.38
32.98
Appendix
TABLE VII: Missing-region PSNR (dB) on the eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences at SR=0.4 . Best and second-best values per sequence are bold and underlined.
Sequence
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
0.320
0.642
0.715
0.649
0.639
0.622
0.744
0.749
0.868
drift-chicane
0.316
0.780
0.502
0.707
0.811
0.717
0.755
0.854
0.861
cows
0.271
0.537
0.647
0.627
0.554
0.464
0.649
0.710
0.785
dog
0.588
0.632
0.820
0.593
0.724
0.536
0.802
0.848
0.872
camel
0.264
0.572
0.671
0.648
0.637
0.517
0.726
0.770
0.801
kite-surf
0.591
0.742
0.852
0.741
0.793
0.677
0.865
0.850
0.903
Appendix
TABLE VIII: Full-frame SSIM on the eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences at SR=0.2 . Best and second-best values per sequence are bold and underlined.
Sequence
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
0.652
0.733
0.811
0.732
0.699
0.742
0.828
0.819
0.908
drift-chicane
0.428
0.846
0.750
0.792
0.847
0.798
0.851
0.890
0.906
cows
0.527
0.640
0.765
0.724
0.612
0.599
0.759
0.790
0.849
dog
0.674
0.756
0.891
0.679
0.784
0.669
0.877
0.897
0.916
camel
0.600
0.683
0.787
0.727
0.649
0.646
0.808
0.834
0.858
kite-surf
0.761
0.807
0.907
0.790
0.841
0.767
0.913
0.890
0.937
Appendix
TABLE IX: Full-frame SSIM on the eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences at SR=0.3 . Best and second-best values per sequence are bold and underlined.
Sequence
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
0.731
0.789
0.878
0.796
0.778
0.821
0.880
0.868
0.937
drift-chicane
0.536
0.834
0.857
0.860
0.892
0.855
0.904
0.908
0.938
cows
0.693
0.705
0.842
0.791
0.678
0.705
0.833
0.846
0.887
dog
0.726
0.827
0.936
0.753
0.832
0.772
0.923
0.928
0.945
camel
0.687
0.747
0.857
0.785
0.734
0.743
0.866
0.878
0.895
kite-surf
0.803
0.856
0.944
0.830
0.867
0.835
0.944
0.918
0.959
Appendix
TABLE X: Full-frame SSIM on the eight selected DAVIS RGB sequences at SR=0.4 . Best and second-best values per sequence are bold and underlined.
Method
SR=0.2
SR=0.3
SR=0.4
Mean
DRO-TFF
0.05233
0.04917
0.04842
0.04997
HLRTF
0.04856
0.04419
0.04177
0.04484
KBR
0.04038
0.03505
0.03024
0.03522
LRTFR
0.04876
0.04687
0.04511
0.04691
OTLRM
0.04926
0.04853
0.04510
0.04763
TNN
0.05166
0.04687
0.04265
0.04706
Appendix
TABLE XI: Temporal-gradient MAE on the missing tubes of eight selected DAVIS 360p RGB videos (lower is better). The rightmost column is the mean across the three sampling rates. The lowest and second-lowest values are bold and underlined, respectively.
Video
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
0.05797
0.05304
0.05298
0.05348
0.06816
0.05450
0.04945
0.05136
0.03522
drift-chicane
0.00984
0.00788
0.00826
0.00778
0.00774
0.00829
0.00582
0.00772
0.00519
cows
0.06826
0.06613
0.06049
0.06096
0.08213
0.06906
0.05932
0.05791
0.04894
dog
0.05979
0.05876
0.03597
0.06479
0.04745
0.06331
0.03790
0.03373
0.02997
camel
0.07584
0.06873
0.06159
0.06715
0.07146
0.07220
0.05667
0.05437
0.04865
kite-surf
0.03892
0.03644
0.02622
0.03664
0.03264
0.03894
0.02473
0.02761
0.02046
Appendix
TABLE XII: Missing-tube temporal-gradient MAE (lower is better) on the eight selected DAVIS RGB videos at SR=0.2 . Lowest and second-lowest entries in each row are bold and underlined.
Video
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
0.05461
0.05164
0.04833
0.05276
0.06662
0.05048
0.04534
0.04730
0.03147
drift-chicane
0.00883
0.00777
0.00707
0.00766
0.00808
0.00763
0.00535
0.00766
0.00476
cows
0.06434
0.06312
0.05631
0.05933
0.08274
0.06610
0.05480
0.05318
0.04516
dog
0.05721
0.05001
0.02944
0.06180
0.04395
0.05518
0.03148
0.02944
0.02509
camel
0.07078
0.06277
0.05362
0.06542
0.07754
0.06676
0.05120
0.04871
0.04335
kite-surf
0.03616
0.03467
0.02196
0.03593
0.02973
0.03530
0.02115
0.02575
0.01739
Appendix
TABLE XIII: Missing-tube temporal-gradient MAE (lower is better) on the eight selected DAVIS RGB videos at SR=0.3 . Lowest and second-lowest entries in each row are bold and underlined.
Video
DRO-TFF
HLRTF
KBR
LRTFR
OTLRM
TNN
SALTS
S 2 NTNN
Ours
bear
0.05395
0.05057
0.04169
0.05203
0.06059
0.04679
0.04171
0.04420
0.02885
drift-chicane
0.00843
0.00767
0.00642
0.00755
0.00666
0.00707
0.00501
0.00763
0.00443
cows
0.06266
0.06194
0.05034
0.05808
0.08042
0.06301
0.05055
0.04977
0.04244
dog
0.05663
0.04574
0.02407
0.05843
0.04151
0.04815
0.02676
0.02664
0.02211
camel
0.06962
0.05941
0.04698
0.06421
0.06963
0.06179
0.04642
0.04517
0.03980
kite-surf
0.03591
0.03277
0.01821
0.03525
0.02913
0.03193
0.01832
0.02406
0.01528
Appendix
TABLE XIV: Missing-tube temporal-gradient MAE (lower is better) on the eight selected DAVIS RGB videos at SR=0.4 . Lowest and second-lowest entries in each row are bold and underlined.
Fig. 3: Difference in missing-region PSNR between Ours and the strongest alternative baseline for each selected sequence and sampling rate.
Fig. 4: RGB reconstruction comparison on Dog at sampling rates 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 (from top to bottom), with common ROIs across methods. The annotated PSNR values report missing-region PSNR over all 50 frames.
Fig. 5: RGB reconstruction comparison on Camel at sampling rates 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 (from top to bottom), with common ROIs across methods. The annotated PSNR values report missing-region PSNR over all 50 frames.
Fig. 6: RGB reconstruction comparison on Kite-surf at sampling rates 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 (from top to bottom), with common ROIs across methods. The annotated PSNR values report missing-region PSNR over all 50 frames.
Fig. 7: RGB reconstruction comparison on Parkour at sampling rates 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 (from top to bottom), with common ROIs across methods. The annotated PSNR values report missing-region PSNR over all 50 frames.
Fig. 8: RGB reconstruction comparison on Breakdance at sampling rates 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 (from top to bottom), with common ROIs across methods. The annotated PSNR values report missing-region PSNR over all 50 frames.
Self-supervised video denoising methods typically extend image-based frameworks into the temporal dimension, yet they often struggle to integrate inter-frame temporal consistency with intra-frame spatial specificity. Existing Video Blind-Spot Networks (BSNs) require noise independence by masking the center pixel, this constraint prevents the use of spatial evidence for texture recovery, thereby severing spatiotemporal correlations and causing texture loss. To address this, we propose Frames2Residual (F2R), a spatiotemporal decoupling framework that explicitly divides self-supervised training into two distinct stages: blind temporal consistency modeling and non-blind spatial texture recovery. In Stage 1, a blind temporal estimator learns inter-frame consistency using a frame-wise blind strategy, producing a temporally consistent anchor. In Stage 2, a non-blind spatial refiner leverages this anchor to safely reintroduce the center frame and recover intra-frame high-frequency spatial residuals while preserving temporal stability. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our decoupling strategy allows F2R to outperform existing self-supervised methods on both sRGB and raw video benchmarks.
Mingjie Ji, Zhan Shi, Kailai Zhou +2
Nanjing University, Nanjing, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Devices and Systems with Extreme Performances of MOE, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
We tackle the problem of sparse novel view synthesis (NVS) using video diffusion models; given K (≈5) multi-view images of a scene and their camera poses, we predict the view from a target camera pose. Many prior approaches leverage generative image priors encoded via diffusion models. However, models trained on single images lack multi-view knowledge. We instead argue that video models already contain implicit multi-view knowledge and so should be easier to adapt for NVS. Our key insight is to formulate sparse NVS as a low frame-rate video completion task. However, one challenge is that sparse NVS is defined over an unordered set of inputs, often too sparse to admit a meaningful order, so the models should be invariant to permutations of that input set. To this end, we present FrameCrafter, which adapts video models (naturally trained with coherent frame orderings) to permutation-invariant NVS through several architectural modifications, including per-frame latent encodings and removal of temporal positional embeddings. Our results suggest that video models can be easily trained to "forget" about time with minimal supervision, producing competitive performance on sparse-view NVS benchmarks. Project page: https://frame-crafter.github.io/
Self-supervised pre-training via cross-view completion learns strong features for 3D vision from co-visible regions of image pairs. However, the reference view provides little information for reconstructing non-co-visible patches, implicitly yielding a monocular training signal in these regions. We introduce Gekko, which turns this limitation into a useful signal. The relative improvement of the cross-view reconstruction error over a masked-autoencoder error is a self-supervised proxy for co-visibility: large improvements indicate co-visible regions, negligible ones non-co-visible areas. Gekko is a network, trained from scratch, that jointly performs cross-view completion, masked autoencoding, and per-pixel prediction of this relative improvement, providing an additional binocular signal for all masked regions without any ground-truth 3D annotation. Under identical architectures and training data, Gekko consistently outperforms CroCo on zero-shot correspondence estimation, relative pose estimation, and pointmap regression, with up to 6 times higher accuracy at the strictest relative-pose threshold and a 22% drop in end-point error on ETH3D. The extra channel it learns is itself a strong co-visibility detector on unseen scenes, and Gekko's frozen features outperform released cross-view backbones of comparable or larger size. It can also be trained directly from raw videos with a simple stride-based curriculum, removing the cumbersome 3D preprocessing prior methods require while matching models trained on curated data. Code and pre-trained models are publicly available.
Thibaut Loiseau, Guillaume Bourmaud, Vincent Lepetit
LIGM, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, IP Paris, Univ Gustave Eiffel, CNRS, France · Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, IMS, UMR 5218, France