We present VGGT-Diff, a geometry-routed multi-view diffusion model for sparse-view novel view synthesis. Existing NVS methods face a fundamental trade-off: reconstruction-based approaches preserve observed geometry but struggle to synthesize unseen regions, while diffusion-based methods provide strong generative priors yet rely on implicit source-to-query correspondence. VGGT-Diff bridges these regimes by routing visual geometry latents from VGGT-Ω into a pretrained video diffusion model.
A confidence-aware Visual Geometry Router transforms 3D points and appearance-bearing tokens into query-aligned conditions while preserving front and back surface evidence. Joint target-view denoising is regularized by Point-Track Residual Consistency, which aligns predicted-clean residuals along reliable 3D tracks. Uncertainty-aware training and inference further improve robustness to imperfect geometry.
Method
Sparse input views are encoded into clean appearance latents, camera rays, and routed visual geometry. A Wan-initialized multi-view DiT jointly denoises one to sixteen requested views; flow matching and PTRC supervise fidelity and cross-view consistency.
01
Visual Geometry Router
Projects VGGT-Ω features into requested cameras with confidence-aware, two-layer visibility routing.
02
Joint Multi-View Diffusion
Processes source and query slots together so requested views exchange information during denoising.
03
Point-Track Consistency
Couples remaining denoising errors along reliable 3D tracks without suppressing view-dependent appearance.
+ Visual Geometry Conditioning
The router begins from a sharp depth-selected anchor, preserves secondary-surface evidence near uncertain occlusions, and learns only a residual correction from layered features and routing statistics.
Results
19.283DL3DV PSNR↑ latest checkpoint
0.198DL3DV LPIPS-Alex↓ latest checkpoint
17.217Mip-NeRF 360 PSNRzero-shot
+1.179 dBDL3DV PSNR gainvs. earlier VGGT-Diff
Latest quantitative checkpoint: 100K effective steps at 192 × 336 on 9,510 DL3DV training scenes, followed by 6K full-resolution adaptation steps at 480 × 832. The formal results below use six input views and independent target-view inference.
Compared with prior baselines, VGGT-Diff synthesizes novel views that remain more faithful to the real scene, better preserving its original geometry, object identity, and visual content. The predicted images also align more accurately with the requested camera viewpoints and their corresponding ground-truth views, producing more consistent spatial layouts and fewer viewpoint or content mismatches.
Ground Truth
VGGT-DiffFrameCrafter↔
VGGT-DiffSEVA↔
VGGT-DiffDepthSplat↔
Loading scene
Drag any divider to compare. When idle, the sliders move gently to reveal both results.
Five paper-selected DL3DV scenes from the earlier release. Each slider compares the same target view and common 480 × 480 evaluation crop.+ Baseline Comparisons
DL3DV
Method
Training Scenes
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DreamSim ↓
DepthSplat
77.5K
17.284
0.566
0.307
0.158
SEVA
80K
16.150
0.470
0.253
0.088
FrameCrafter
1K
17.180
0.445
0.223
0.066
VGGT-Diff (earlier)
1K
18.104
0.508
0.222
0.062
VGGT-Diff (100K + 6K)
9,510
19.283
0.569
0.198
0.054
Mip-NeRF 360 zero-shot
Method
Training Scenes
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DreamSim ↓
DepthSplat
77.5K
15.977
0.370
0.410
0.215
SEVA
80K
14.590
0.294
0.372
0.137
FrameCrafter
1K
15.640
0.279
0.365
0.111
VGGT-Diff (earlier)
1K
16.296
0.317
0.315
0.091
VGGT-Diff (100K + 6K)
9,510
17.217
0.362
0.283
0.080
The latest VGGT-Diff row uses the 9,510-scene clean DL3DV split and the selected full-resolution Step-6K checkpoint; the earlier 1K-scene row is retained for reference. Both benchmarks use the formal six-input-to-one-target protocol at 480 × 832 with a center 480-pixel metric crop, LPIPS-Alex, and DreamSim. Mip-NeRF 360 is evaluated zero-shot against camera-matched ground truth, without dataset-specific fine-tuning.
+ PSNR Across Pose Difficulties
We stratify 192 DL3DV targets by interpolation or extrapolation and by near, mid, or far distance from the closest input camera. This controlled comparison measures how reliably each method follows increasingly difficult target cameras rather than hiding challenging cases inside a single average.
PSNR on DL3DV across target-camera difficulty. Each bin contains 32 targets and uses independent six-to-one inference.
Method
Interpolation
Extrapolation
Near
Mid
Far
Near
Mid
Far
Regression-based models
AnySplat
14.196
12.415
10.862
13.977
12.566
11.827
E-RayZer
17.388
14.878
13.824
16.833
14.477
14.712
LVSM
20.276
16.599
13.969
20.790
16.633
15.579
DepthSplat
20.376
17.424
14.820
20.653
17.943
16.374
Diffusion-based models
Aether
14.030
12.167
11.065
15.739
12.295
11.795
GEN3C
13.620
12.356
11.548
14.288
13.050
12.288
MVSplat360
15.282
14.420
13.389
15.542
14.479
14.176
FrameCrafter
20.338
17.485
14.649
21.168
17.888
16.594
SEVA
20.940
17.861
14.703
22.311
18.050
16.575
VGGT-Diff (earlier)
20.920
18.391
15.853
22.396
18.793
17.793
VGGT-Diff (100K + 6K)
22.772
19.640
16.755
24.222
20.282
18.673
The latest checkpoint leads all six bins in this fixed 192-case diagnostic. These pose-difficulty PSNR values are from 32 targets per bin and must not be confused with the complete DL3DV Table 1 evaluation of 6,188 targets.
+ Cross-View Geometry
To test whether multiple generated views agree on a single 3D structure, we jointly synthesize eight target views from the same six input views and reconstruct them with two frozen geometry models: VGGT-Ω, our primary probe, and Pi3, an independent reconstructor never used to train or condition VGGT-Diff. Each point cloud is compared with the reference reconstructed from the corresponding ground-truth views under identical cameras and settings. Agreement under both probes shows that the gains reflect stronger cross-view geometry rather than evaluator bias.
VGGT-Ω reconstruction
Method
Chamfer-L1 ↓
F-score@1% ↑
F-score@2% ↑
LVSM
0.2387
0.1116
0.2218
SEVA
0.1944
0.2050
0.3244
FrameCrafter
0.1000
0.3086
0.4793
VGGT-Diff
0.0733
0.4231
0.6041
Pi3 reconstruction independent probe
Method
Chamfer-L1 ↓
F-score@1% ↑
F-score@2% ↑
LVSM
0.3610
0.0673
0.1525
SEVA
0.2514
0.1640
0.2751
FrameCrafter
0.1404
0.2140
0.3880
VGGT-Diff
0.1174
0.3089
0.5021
These cross-view geometry results are from the earlier VGGT-Diff evaluation, not the new 100K + 6K checkpoint. Evaluated across 52 DL3DV scenes. Metrics are trajectory-normalized and should be compared within each reconstructor. Lower Chamfer-L1 and higher F-scores indicate stronger cross-view geometric consistency.
Video & Trajectory Demos
Explore twenty 80-frame trajectories generated from six input views. Each plays forward and back at 24 FPS. Select a scene to watch its prediction; matching ground truth remains available for comparison.
Explore trajectoriesSelect a scene to play it above
Citation
@article{chen2026vggtdiff,
title={VGGT-Diff: Visual Geometry Meets Diffusion for Sparse-View Novel View Synthesis},
author={Chen, Kangjie and Li, Xiangyu and Zhang, Dongbin and Zheng, Chaoda and Chen, Shijia and Deng, Jinhao and Lin, Hongbin and Choo, Sin Wai and Wang, Minqi and Yang, Minghao and Zhong, Dake and Song, Guorui and Zhang, Yu and Liu, Xianming and Wang, Boyang},
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.33253},
year={2026}
}