Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 26, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Feed-forward 3D reconstruction models such as VGGT regress cameras and geometry in a single forward pass, but they report no uncertainty for the camera poses they predict: an incorrect relative pose looks no different from a correct one. We ask whether the frozen model nonetheless knows when its pose is wrong. On HardMatch, a benchmark of 1,000 deliberately difficult image pairs on which VGGT fails on 35% of pairs, a linear probe on VGGT's frozen features predicts pose failure on held-out categories with ROC-AUC 93.5%, compared with 79.7% for VGGT's own point-map confidence and 77.7% for a classifier trained on all of VGGT's outputs. The probe catches failures VGGT is confident about, lets a downstream system abstain on the pairs it distrusts, and transfers without retraining to rotation failures on PhotoTourism and ScanNet-1500, beyond what co-visibility explains. This knowledge is absent from the per-image encoder: it is computed partway through the layers that fuse the two views, and the same holds for a second model, $π^3$. In essence, we find that VGGT knows more about its own failures than it reports.