Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Neural 4D Evolution under Large Topological Changes from 2D Images

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single time-conditioned neural SDF can be evolved from a unit sphere into 4D scenes that split, break, and change topology, using only posed RGB images.

desk verdict A promising 4D evolution system whose central continuity condition is false as written; worth reviewing but needs a real fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15018 v1 pith:CWAOSGWQ submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CV

AmirHossein Naghi Razlighi , Tiago Novello , Asen Nachkov , Thomas Probst , Danda Paudel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 4Dreconstructionneuralimplicitsurfacessigneddistancefunctionlevel-setevolutiontopologicalchangeHashGridGaussiansplattingtime-consistentdeformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that level-set evolution, previously used to morph a known 3D surface into a target surface, can be extended to full 4D reconstruction: from posed RGB images alone, a network can learn an entire deformation animation, including large topological changes such as an object splitting or breaking apart. The central assertion is that this works because a HashGrid-encoded, time-conditioned signed distance function, evolved through a flow field derived from image losses, keeps successive surface estimates continuous enough for the update to be valid. If true, this removes the common restriction that deformation models must start from a fixed template of the same topology, and it would let a single network output both geometry and appearance for every moment in time, including moments not seen during training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-conditioned signed distance function $f_\theta(x,t) = \mathrm{MLP}(\mathcal{E}(x), \gamma(t))$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is a multi-resolution HashGrid coordinate encoder (a grid of learned feature vectors with trilinear interpolation) and $\gamma$ is a positional encoding of time. The evolution step—taking the current zero level-set, computing a flow field $\mathbf{V}(x) = -\partial\varepsilon/\partial x$ from a photometric-plus-Laplacian energy, then forming the next level-set estimate $s^{i+1} = f^i_\theta - \Delta t\, \nabla f^i_\theta \cdot \mathbf{V}^i$—is what carries the topological flexibility, because level sets can split and merge freely. The key continuity assumption is Eq. (2): the Chamfer distance between consecutive zero level-sets is bounded by the flow magnitude, which the paper asserts follows from HashGrid encoding; the promised proof does not appear in the appendix. A second HashGrid-encoded MLP predicts appearance (opacity, spherical harmonics, rotation) at the surface vertices so geometry and appearance are disentangled.

What would settle it

Train the same pipeline on a scene with a large topology change (for example, a sphere breaking into many fragments) while recording the Chamfer distance between successive zero level-sets each iteration; if the inequality in Eq. (2) is violated at any step, or if the mesh extraction collapses (all-negative SDF) as the authors report happens for the NIE baseline, the central continuity claim is refuted for that setting. A direct ablation replacing the HashGrid encoder with an ordinary positional encoding should also break the claimed 'continuous between voxels' property and destabilize the evolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that its method, N4DE, is the first to handle large topological deformations in 4D reconstruction without topology-preserving assumptions. It does this by representing the scene as a signed distance function $f_\theta(x,t)$ built on a single 3D HashGrid encoder, with time passed through a positional encoding, and by iteratively evolving the zero level-set $S_t$ using a flow field obtained from photometric and smoothness losses. Each iteration produces a non-parametric 'next-best' level-set estimate (Eq. 5), and the network is trained to match it (Eq. 6), with an additional penalty on $\partial f_\theta/\partial t$ to enforce temporal consistency. All models are initialized as a unit sphere, and the paper reports that the network learns the deformation itself, since evaluating at unseen time steps yields meaningful intermediate meshes.

Load-bearing premise

The entire evolution update relies on the claim that the Chamfer distance between consecutive zero level-sets shrinks with the flow-field magnitude under HashGrid encoding; the paper asserts this but does not actually supply the proof, and if the continuity does not hold for a given voxel resolution or deformation size, the next-best surface estimate is invalid and the optimization can become unstable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dynamic scenes with topology changes—breaking, splitting, merging—can be reconstructed from posed RGB images without any template or topology prior.
  • The learned deformation is continuous in time, so the same model can render frames between and beyond the supervised time steps.
  • Because geometry and appearance are disentangled, the extracted mesh can be re-textured or recolored independently of the reconstruction.
  • The method subsumes static reconstruction: a static scene is recovered as a zero-deformation animation, and multi-object scenes emerge from a single evolving sphere splitting into separate surfaces.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the temporal-consistency regularizer truly makes the deformation learnable from sparse frames, the same regularizer could be dropped into other dynamic neural representations (e.g., dynamic NeRFs) to stabilize topological changes.
  • The claim that unseen time steps render meaningfully implies the network has learned a generative model of the deformation; one could test this by extrapolating far beyond the training interval to see where the animation breaks down, which the paper does not report.
  • Because all runs initialize from the same unit sphere, the method could serve as an animation prior: the same optimization could be re-run from a different initial sphere to produce different but plausible 4D interpretations of the same image sequence.
  • The appearance module's implicit splats on evolving surface points suggest a path to animating real captured 3D Gaussian splatting scenes without explicit splat tracking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes N4DE, a framework for reconstructing dynamic 4D scenes from posed RGB images by evolving a neural implicit SDF initialized as a unit sphere. The SDF is encoded with a HashGrid and conditioned on time, and the evolution follows the level-set approach of NIE. The method imposes temporal consistency by penalizing the time derivative of the SDF, and it introduces a rendering module that predicts appearance properties on the extracted surface. Experiments cover static and dynamic scenes, including topology-changing cases such as a breaking sphere and multi-object reconstructions, with quantitative metrics and a comparison against an adapted NIE baseline.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would offer a practical extension of neural implicit evolution to 4D reconstruction with large topological changes, with the engineering advantages of HashGrid speed and splat initialization from a unit sphere. The authors provide public code and a public dataset, and the reported experiments span a useful variety of deforming scenes, including interpolation to unsupervised timesteps. However, the validity of the evolution update rests on Eq. (2), which is incorrectly stated and has no proof in the appendix, and the flow-field computation is underspecified. The claim of being the first to handle such deformations without assumptions is also not supported by comparisons with existing topology-varying dynamic reconstruction methods.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is not well-formed as written. The Chamfer distance CH(S^{i+1}_t, S^i_t) is a single global nonnegative number, while the right-hand side delta * ||V^i(x)||_2 depends on a point x through the quantifier "for all x there exists delta." If V^i(x_0) = 0 for some x_0 and the two zero level sets differ, the inequality demands CH < 0, which is impossible. A radial expansion V(x) = x with level sets that are concentric spheres is a concrete counterexample. The text states that a proof appears in the appendix, but the supplementary material contains no such proof. Since Eqs. (5) and (6) rely on the next-best level-set estimate being a valid target, this gap is load-bearing. The inequality should be reformulated with a global or local sup-norm of the flow field over the surface, and then proven for the HashGrid trilinear encoding.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3)-(6)] The computation of the flow field V^i is not specified. The manuscript says that an energy epsilon is minimized and that this induces the flow field V = -d epsilon/dx, but it does not state how the photometric loss in Eq. (7) is differentiated with respect to the extracted mesh vertices, what rasterizer is used to render the Lagrangian surface, or how the per-vertex gradients are converted into a smooth flow field. Without this specification, Eq. (5) cannot be computed and the "next-best level-set" target used in Eq. (6) is undefined. This is a central step of the method and needs to be described precisely.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (10)-(13)] The rendering module is presented as continuous Gaussian splatting with predicted opacity, spherical harmonics, rotation, and fixed scale, but the final image formation in Eqs. (12)-(13) is only SH color evaluation followed by barycentric interpolation of vertex colors over mesh faces. The role of the predicted opacity, rotation, and scale in the loss of Eq. (11) is not explained, and it is unclear whether the splats are actually rasterized or whether the module is just a per-vertex color predictor. This ambiguity affects the claim of disentangling geometry and appearance through Gaussian splatting and should be resolved.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 3] The claim that N4DE is "the first to handle such topological deformations without assumptions" is not supported by the experimental validation. The only comparison is with NIE, while existing dynamic reconstruction methods that can represent topology changes, such as HyperNeRF, D-NeRF, K-Planes, and NISE, are neither included in the comparison nor discussed in the experiments. In addition, the contribution bullet "Interpolation and extrapolation of deformations" is only demonstrated for interpolation: Section 4.4 shows inference at timesteps inside the supervised interval, not extrapolation outside it. The claims should be tempered or supported by appropriate comparisons and tests.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "awesome results" is informal for a journal article; please replace it with a quantitative summary of the reported metrics.
  2. [Supplementary, Eq. (15)] The MAPE term in Eq. (15) appears to be missing the multiplier lambda_mape in the displayed formula, and the notation "lambda_mape. f_theta(x,t) - s(x)" is unclear; please rewrite the relative-error term in standard form.
  3. [Section 4.3] The schedule lambda_t(e) = lambda_0^t * 0.995^e is described as "damped exponentially," but it is a geometric decay; the terminology should be made consistent with the formula.
  4. [Table 3] The per-epoch timing comparisons report single numbers without variance or run counts; please clarify whether these are averages over one or multiple training runs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evolution update is a standard level-set advection scheme, and the unseen-time-step rendering claim is an empirical consequence of the time-consistency regularizer, not a quantity defined by it.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by this pass. Eq. (4) (∂f/∂t = -∇f · V) is the standard level-set advection identity, Eq. (5) is its explicit Euler discretization, and Eq. (6) is the corresponding update loss; this is a numerical scheme, not a tautology. The interpolation/extrapolation claim in Sec. 4.4 is supported by the time-consistency regularizer λt||∂f/∂t|| in Eq. (8), but smoothness is a prior and the observed meshes at unseen times are still an empirical result, not an equality forced by construction. The only self-citation with a load-bearing appearance is NISE [25], by co-author Novello et al., used to justify time-conditioned implicit SDFs for topology-changing surfaces; that work is external, peer-reviewed, and independently validated, so it counts as independent support under the rules and does not raise the score. The main caveat is not circularity: Eq. (2) is asserted with "We show in the appendix that is indeed the case when using the coordinate encoding from the HashGrid," but the supplied supplementary material contains no such proof and, as written, the inequality is unsatisfiable at any point where V^i(x)=0 (the right side is 0, forcing a positive Chamfer distance to be less than 0). This is a correctness/completeness gap in the derivation, not a reduction of the prediction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of standard mathematical tools (level-set advection, SDFs, hash encoding), plus several hand-tuned hyperparameters and two ad hoc assumptions specific to this paper: the unproved Chamfer continuity of HashGrid level-sets (Eq. 2) and the hand-scheduled time-consistency regularizer. There are no newly invented physical entities. The free parameters are mostly loss weights and grid scales that are chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis. The most fragile item is the missing proof of Eq. (2), which is load-bearing for the evolution update.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_t decay schedule = 0.05 * 0.995^epoch
    Time-consistency weight that starts at 0.05 and decays exponentially. This hand-tuned schedule directly controls the reported temporal smoothness and the interpolation capability. No sensitivity analysis is given.
  • lambda_l (Laplacian weight) = 0.0002
    Weight on Laplacian regularization in the energy functional; decreased after about 500 epochs. This affects surface smoothness and vertex distribution.
  • lambda_s (SSIM weight) = 0.01
    Weight on the SSIM loss in both the evolution energy and the rendering loss. Hand-chosen, with no ablation.
  • lambda_mape = 0.2
    Weight for the MAPE loss during sphere initialization. A hand-set constant in the initialization phase.
  • delta_t = not specified
    Time step in the level-set update Eq. (5). Described as a hyperparameter dependent on the flow dynamics, but its value is never given, making the exact update un-reproducible from the text.
  • splat scale = 1/d_voxel
    Splat scale is fixed to the inverse voxel size rather than learned. This is a design choice that affects rendering quality and the coverage of the surface.
  • HashGrid per-level scale = 1.5 (SDF), 1.3819 (rendering)
    The scale factor between hash grid levels, chosen by hand for each module. It determines the resolution of the encoding and affects both speed and quality.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Level-set advection: the surface evolves according to dx/dt = -de/dx and the SDF updates by df/dt = -grad f dot V.
    Borrowed from Neural Implicit Evolution (Mehta et al. 2022), Eqs. (3)-(5). The paper assumes this formulation without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption The input consists of posed RGB images with known camera parameters.
    The photometric loss and rendering require camera poses. The paper does not address pose estimation and assumes they are available.
  • ad hoc to paper The zero-level sets of consecutive iterations satisfy the Chamfer bound in Eq. (2) due to HashGrid trilinear interpolation.
    Stated in Section 3.1 with a promise of proof in the appendix, but the supplementary material does not contain the proof. The evolution loss Eq. (6) depends on this condition.
  • domain assumption A single 3D HashGrid plus a time positional encoding can represent SDFs whose topology changes over time.
    This is the core architectural hypothesis. The paper provides empirical evidence on synthetic scenes but no theoretical guarantee; hash collisions could break continuity.
  • ad hoc to paper Penalizing the time derivative of the SDF with a decaying weight enforces temporal smoothness without oversmoothing.
    The schedule in Eq. (8) is hand-designed. No ablation shows its necessity, and the interpolation and extrapolation claims rely on this regularizer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural 4D Evolution under Large Topological Changes from 2D Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CWAOSGWQ

@misc{pith2026241115018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural 4D Evolution under Large Topological Changes from 2D Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CWAOSGWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15018}
}
read the original abstract

In the literature, it has been shown that the evolution of the known explicit 3D surface to the target one can be learned from 2D images using the instantaneous flow field, where the known and target 3D surfaces may largely differ in topology. We are interested in capturing 4D shapes whose topology changes largely over time. We encounter that the straightforward extension of the existing 3D-based method to the desired 4D case performs poorly. In this work, we address the challenges in extending 3D neural evolution to 4D under large topological changes by proposing two novel modifications. More precisely, we introduce (i) a new architecture to discretize and encode the deformation and learn the SDF and (ii) a technique to impose the temporal consistency. (iii) Also, we propose a rendering scheme for color prediction based on Gaussian splatting. Furthermore, to facilitate learning directly from 2D images, we propose a learning framework that can disentangle the geometry and appearance from RGB images. This method of disentanglement, while also useful for the 4D evolution problem that we are concentrating on, is also novel and valid for static scenes. Our extensive experiments on various data provide awesome results and, most importantly, open a new approach toward reconstructing challenging scenes with significant topological changes and deformations. Our source code and the dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/insait-institute/N4DE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Task scheme. Our method learns the deformation an￾imation of an object between two frames with large topological changes between them. their commercial success 1 . Further democratization of the technology – similar to large language models – however is certainly limited by the static world assumption underlying those approaches [28]. This leads to undesired artifacts de￾teriorating both the geometric accuracy and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the SDF module. Each point x ∈ [0, 1]3 is encoded using (a) HashGrid which is presented in Section 3.1. Then, the coordinate encoding (of dimension F × L) are concatenated with the positional encoding of time (γ(t)) and fed into a MLP (SDF Head). (b) Signed distance value for each point is estimated, and the Lagrangian representation of mesh is extracted via Marching Cubes [20]. As our experiments sh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall pipeline for training and inference with the rendering module. In each iteration, the surface points estimated by the SDF Head are extracted via marching cubes [20]. They are then encoded via a HashGrid encoder [24] and the time embedding (via positional encoding) is concatenated to them. These features go through the rendering module to estimate the splat’s appearance properties (excluding for position and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated meshes at different timesteps for the Static Bracelet scene. The scene is only supervised at t = 0 and by the effect of the ∂Sθ ∂t regularizer, it learns to be constant along time. our SDF module (fθ) parameters. The L2 loss between our current SDF estimate a…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the proposed pipeline, applied on a Stan￾ford bunny. A geometric/appearance representation is extracted using the method presented in Sec 3.1/Sec 3.4. The final colored mesh is given by the combination of these two representations. 3.3. Regularizations One …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimated meshes at different timesteps for the Breaking Sphere (Longer) scene. The SDF Module is trained on 5 frames (t = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1) but the total deformation animation is learned and morphing is done in unseen time-steps. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ten frame static Voronoi sphere reconstruction. Al￾though the model is supervised on 10 frames (t = 0, 0.1, ..., 0.9), because of the time consistency regularization, the prediction is consistent among other times in this interval too. embedding for each point. As an e…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Multi object reconstructions. The Multi Object ex￾periment showcases that our model is also capable of evolving a simple sphere into more than 1 object of target. The two images show the estimated geometry from 2 different views. 4.4. Interpolation and Extrapolation On…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Rendering Module (Sec. 3.4) outcomes after our in￾ference approach, rendered in different time steps. The Rendering Module is initialized by placing splats on the surface of a sphere to cover the sphere completely. representation (Vt). For scaling, we experimented wit…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SDF Module (Sec. 3.1) initialized as sphere via our initialization schema. 6.2. Initializing Rendering Module After initializing the SDF Module to predict the sphere ini￾tially, we also fit the Rendering Module to fit the splats on the surface of these spheres in all …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: NIE [22] model initialized as all spheres and rendered in 3 sample time steps. Note that the input of this module is the estimated surface points from the SDF Module. The details of the HashGrid encoder are the same as the encoder explained in Sec. 7.2. Number of outp…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: NIE [22] model trained on single frame static Stanford Bunny, by giving 3D inputs only. (Left) Predicted (Right) Ground Truth. that static scenes concatenate t = 0 as the 4th dimension to the input, and the model can reconstruct the mesh with an acceptable quality sim…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: NIE [22] model trained on multi-frame deforming bunny scene. As you can see, the model does not learn the cor￾rect animation conditioned on time and instead overfits to be like the first frame (t = 0). 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: NIE model’s reconstruction of the ”Deformable chair” scene. (Top) NIE reconstruction in t = 0 and t = 1. (Bottom) Ground truth in t = 0 and t = 1. The most important factor our model aims at is the ability to reconstruct deformation animations. NIE [22] model in its p…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: NIE [22] model trained on five frames of the ”De￾formable Breaking Sphere” scene. It failed after 2303 epochs. The last frame (t = 5) evolution is plotted in this figure during epochs. Compare it with our model’s outcomes on the same scene in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: (Left) NIE’s reconstruction when supervised via RGB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Visualized first two time-steps of Deformable Bunny scene and its estimates via NIE and N4DE. As can be seen, NIE did not learn the animation properly and estimates the same mesh in different time steps, but our estimates are near the GT while distinguishing between e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mart ´ın Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Dandelion Man ´e, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek M...

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Neusg: Neural im- plicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guid- ance

    Hanlin Chen, Chen Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Neusg: Neural im- plicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guid- ance. ArXiv, abs/2312.00846, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs

    Hao-Tien Lewis Chiang, Zhuo Xu, Zipeng Fu, Mithun George Jacob, Tingnan Zhang, Tsang-Wei Ed- ward Lee, Wenhao Yu, Connor Schenck, David Rendleman, Dhruv Shah, Fei Xia, Jasmine Hsu, Jonathan Hoech, Pete Florence, Sean Kirmani, Sumeet Singh, Vikas Sindhwani, Carolina Parada, Chelsea Finn, Peng Xu, Sergey Levine, and Jie Tan. Mobility vla: Multimodal instruc...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Animatomy: an animator-centric, anatomically inspired system for 3d facial modeling, anima- tion and transfer

    Byungkuk Choi, Haekwang Eom, Benjamin Mouscadet, Stephen Cullingford, Kurt Ma, Stefanie Gassel, Suzi Kim, Andrew Moffat, Millicent Maier, Marco Revelant, Joe Let- teri, and Karan Singh. Animatomy: an animator-centric, anatomically inspired system for 3d facial modeling, anima- tion and transfer. SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers,

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package

    Blender Online Community. Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package. Blender Foundation, Stichting Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Newcombe, and Lingni Ma

    Enric Corona, Tom ´as Hodan, Minh V o, Francesc Moreno- Noguer, Chris Sweeney, Richard A. Newcombe, and Lingni Ma. Lisa: Learning implicit shape and appearance of hands. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20501–20511, 2022. 1, 3

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels

    Jiemin Fang, Taoran Yi, Xinggang Wang, Lingxi Xie, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Qi Tian. Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels. SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers, 2022. 3

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A comprehensive survey on ar-enabled local collaboration

    Shuo Feng, Weiping He, Xiaotian Zhang, Mark Billinghurst, and Shuxia Wang. A comprehensive survey on ar-enabled local collaboration. Virtual Reality, 27:2941 – 2966, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    K-planes: Ex- plicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Giacomo Meanti, Frederik Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. K-planes: Ex- plicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance. 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12479–12488, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  2. [10]

    Russell, and Angjoo Kanazawa

    Han Gao, Ruilong Li, Shubham Tulsiani, Bryan C. Russell, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Monocular dynamic view synthesis: A reality check. ArXiv, abs/2210.13445, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes

    Amos Gropp, Lior Yariv, Niv Haim, Matan Atzmon, and Yaron Lipman. Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10099, 2020. 5

    2002 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruc- tion and high-quality mesh rendering

    Antoine Gu ´edon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruc- tion and high-quality mesh rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5354–5363, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields. ArXiv, abs/2403.17888, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D-tensorf: Tensorial ra- diance fields for dynamic scenes

    Hankyu Jang and Daeyoung Kim. D-tensorf: Tensorial ra- diance fields for dynamic scenes. ArXiv, abs/2212.02375,

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4), 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2023

  8. [16]

    Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering

    Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Seol, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (ToG), 39(6):1–14, 2020. 4

    2020

  9. [17]

    Neural 3D Video Synthesis from Multi- view Video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, and Zhaoyang Lv. Neural 3D Video Synthesis from Multi- view Video . In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision a...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Partition speeds up learning implicit neu- ral representations based on exponential-increase hypothe- sis

    Ke Liu, Feng Liu, Haishuai Wang, Ning Ma, Jiajun Bu, and Bo Han. Partition speeds up learning implicit neu- ral representations based on exponential-increase hypothe- sis. 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 5451–5460, 2023. 3

    2023

  11. [19]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Ger- ard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 34(6):248:1–248:16, 2015. 7, 8, 3, 5

    2015

  12. [20]

    Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm

    William E Lorensen and Harvey E Cline. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. InSem- inal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, pages 347–353. 1998. 2, 3, 4, 6, 1, 5

    1998

  13. [21]

    3dgsr: Implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splat- ting

    Xiaoyang Lyu, Yang tian Sun, Yi-Hua Huang, Xiuzhe Wu, Ziyi Yang, Yilun Chen, Jiangmiao Pang, and Xiaojuan Qi. 3dgsr: Implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splat- ting. ArXiv, abs/2404.00409, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A level set theory for neural implicit evolution under explicit flows

    Ishit Mehta, Manmohan Chandraker, and Ravi Ramamoor- thi. A level set theory for neural implicit evolution under explicit flows. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 711–729. Springer, 2022. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 5

    2022

  15. [23]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In ECCV, 2020. 1, 2, 3

    2020

  16. [24]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- 9 tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- 9 tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 1

    2022

  17. [25]

    Neural implicit surface evolution

    Tiago Novello, Vin ´ıcius da Silva, Guilherme Gonc ¸alves Schardong, Luiz Schirmer, H ´elio Lopes, and Luiz Velho. Neural implicit surface evolution. 2023 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 14233–14243, 2022. 2, 3

    2023

  18. [26]

    Unisurf: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction

    Michael Oechsle, Songyou Peng, and Andreas Geiger. Unisurf: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5589–5599, 2021. 2

    2021

  19. [27]

    Deepsdf: Learning con- tinuous signed distance functions for shape representation

    Jeong Joon Park, Peter Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning con- tinuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 165–174, 2019. 2

    2019

  20. [28]

    Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Steven M Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualla. Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5865–5874, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  21. [29]

    Hypernerf: A higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Peter Hedman, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Steven M Seitz. Hypernerf: A higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13228, 2021. 1, 3

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Al- ban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. In NIPS-W, 2017. 8

    2017

  23. [31]

    ihuman: Instant animatable digital humans from monocular videos

    Pramish Paudel, Anubhav Khanal, Ajad Chhatkuli, Danda Pani Paudel, and Jyoti Tandukar. ihuman: Instant animatable digital humans from monocular videos. ArXiv, abs/2407.11174, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes

    Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10313– 10322, 2020. 1, 3

    2021

  25. [33]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 1

    2016

  26. [34]

    Chen, Lele Chen, Junsong Yuan, Yi Xu, and Andreas Geiger

    Liangchen Song, Anpei Chen, Zhong Li, Z. Chen, Lele Chen, Junsong Yuan, Yi Xu, and Andreas Geiger. Nerf- player: A streamable dynamic scene representation with de- composed neural radiance fields. IEEE Transactions on Vi- sualization and Computer Graphics, 29:2732–2742, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  27. [35]

    3d scene understanding by voxel-crf

    Byung soo Kim, Pushmeet Kohli, and Silvio Savarese. 3d scene understanding by voxel-crf. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1425–1432, 2013. 1

    2013

  28. [36]

    Sumner, Marc Pollefeys, Federico Tombari, and Francis Engelmann

    Ayca Takmaz, Elisabetta Fedele, Robert W. Sumner, Marc Pollefeys, Federico Tombari, and Francis Engelmann. Open- mask3d: Open-vocabulary 3d instance segmentation. ArXiv, abs/2306.13631, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Taylor and Barbara Tversky

    Holly A. Taylor and Barbara Tversky. Descriptions and de- pictions of environments. Memory & Cognition , 20:483– 496, 1992. 1

    1992

  30. [38]

    Dn-splatter: Depth and normal priors for gaussian splatting and meshing.ArXiv, abs/2403.17822, 2024

    Matias Turkulainen, Xuqian Ren, Iaroslav Melekhov, Otto Seiskari, Esa Rahtu, and Juho Kannala. Dn-splatter: Depth and normal priors for gaussian splatting and meshing.ArXiv, abs/2403.17822, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view recon- struction

    Yiming Wang, Qin Han, Marc Habermann, Kostas Dani- ilidis, Christian Theobalt, and Lingjie Liu. Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view recon- struction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3295–3306, 2023. 3

    2023

  33. [41]

    Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Chung-Yi Weng, Brian Curless, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ira Kemelmacher-Shlizerman. Hu- mannerf: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16189– 16199...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Ant´unez, Adam Barth, Andrew Adams, Mark Horowitz, and Marc Levoy

    Bennett Wilburn, Neel Joshi, Vaibhav Vaish, Eino-Ville Tal- vala, Emilio R. Ant´unez, Adam Barth, Andrew Adams, Mark Horowitz, and Marc Levoy. High performance imaging using large camera arrays. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Papers, 2005. 1

    2005

  35. [43]

    Surface re- construction from gaussian splatting via novel stereo views

    Yaniv Wolf, Amit Bracha, and Ron Kimmel. Surface re- construction from gaussian splatting via novel stereo views. ArXiv, abs/2404.01810, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Implicit gaussian splat- ting with efficient multi-level tri-plane representation.ArXiv, abs/2408.10041, 2024

    Minye Wu and Tinne Tuytelaars. Implicit gaussian splat- ting with efficient multi-level tri-plane representation.ArXiv, abs/2408.10041, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    V olume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V olume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. ArXiv, abs/2106.12052, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 34:4805–4815, 2021. 3, 2

    2021

  39. [47]

    V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 34:4805–4815, 2021. 2

    2021

  40. [48]

    Monosdf: Exploring monocu- lar geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction

    Zehao Yu, Songyou Peng, Michael Niemeyer, Torsten Sat- tler, and Andreas Geiger. Monosdf: Exploring monocu- lar geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction. ArXiv, abs/2206.00665, 2022. 2 10 Neural 4D Evolution under Large Topological Changes from 2D Images Suppl...

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    3.1) and Rendering Module (Sec

    Initialization scheme For initialization, we choose a simple yet efficient initializa- tion approach for both of our SDF Module (Sec. 3.1) and Rendering Module (Sec. 3.4). 6.1. Initializing SDF Module We first initialize the SDF Module to be a sphere in all sam- pled time-step...

  42. [51]

    Model Architecture In this section, we will discuss the different factors that in- fluence the outcome of our model and why we chose these architectural choices. 7.1. The choice of HashGrid Encoder We chose the HashGrid encoder [24] because of two prop- erties: 1. It fits the ...

  43. [52]

    To explain further these two benefits, please note that based on the HashGrid’s resolution (in each level), two 1 Figure 12

    It helps to learn the movements of surface points fed into the Rendering Module. To explain further these two benefits, please note that based on the HashGrid’s resolution (in each level), two 1 Figure 12. Loss plot (photometric loss) of NIE trained on2 frames of the ” dynamic...

  44. [54]

    Comparison with the Baseline We compare our model (N4DE) with the baseline (NIE [22]). Since NIE is aimed to reconstruct 3D scenes via the evolution method proposed in the paper and is focused not on dynamic scenes but on static scenes, we make some changes to the code to supp...

  45. [55]

    model proposed in the NIE’s approach affects the out- put quality significantly. Aside from the dynamic scenes, even in static scenes like the Stanford bunny, we noticed that training and infering the NIE model with concatenating t = 0 simply causes to lose a lot of fine detai...

  46. [56]

    architecture. Even with this kind of customization on NIE’s [22] architecture, most of the dynamic scenes, specif- ically the ones that have significant topological changes be- tween their two consecutive frames (like SMPL [19] scenes and the breaking sphere scene) fail due to...

  47. [57]

    N4DE vs NIE In this section, we mention the main benefits of using N4DE instead of just customizing NIE to accept time as 4th dimen- sion and overfit on each frame:

  48. [58]

    On the other hand, N4DE does not require such different configura- tions for each scene

    It is really hard in NIE to find optimal hyper-parameters (because of using SIREN) for each scene. On the other hand, N4DE does not require such different configura- tions for each scene

  49. [59]

    NIE in the best case (concatenating γ(t) to the x and inputting the resulting 3 + 64 dimensional vector to the MLP) still is incapable of representing the deformation animation and it just learns a mesh representation that is very similar to the ground truth int = 0 and looks ...

  50. [60]

    It only works with high quality if we supervise it with silhouette-like gray-scale images (Images rendered with Phong Shader and without texture)

    NIE - even in static scenes - cannot learn a good, de- tailed, meaningful representation based on RGB images. It only works with high quality if we supervise it with silhouette-like gray-scale images (Images rendered with Phong Shader and without texture)

  51. [61]

    3 for some comparisons)

    N4DE has an obvious superiority compared to NIE re- garding training time and inference time (refer to Tab. 3 for some comparisons). This is because HashGrid and a much smaller MLP are used as the SDF head. To further investigate the outcomes of NIE, we’ve plot- ted the ”Defor...

  52. [62]

    encoder, we can have a much smaller MLP as the SDF head and, thus, decrease the training time significantly. In Tab. 3, you can see the speed comparisons between our method and NIE. Please note that these time estimates are calculated based on averaging the number of seconds t...

    1900

  53. [64]

    The shared backbone is an MLP consisting of 3 hidden layer and 128 neurons per layer

    The Rendering Head MLP comprises a shared back- bone and separate heads. The shared backbone is an MLP consisting of 3 hidden layer and 128 neurons per layer. The output of this shared backbone is a 64 dimensional feature vector. This f ∈ R64 feature vector is fed to 3 separat...

  54. [256]

    We know that for Gaussian Splatting [15] to converge, we do not need to have the cor- rect estimate of colors necessarily

    Then, to fit the splats on the surface of the mesh, we define the following loss function: Loss = ||Iest − IGT ||1 (17) Here, Iest represents the rasterized estimated image, and IGT represents the rendered (without texture) image of the sphere from the SDF Module. We know that...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.