Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 53 references

The Radiance of Neural Fields: Democratizing Photorealistic and Dynamic Robotic Simulation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Neural radiance fields can replace hand-built 3D models as the core of a robotic simulator, rendering photorealistic environments and animated humans with realistic sensor data for vision-based testing.

desk verdict A genuine integration of NeRF, human animation, and social forces into a ROS2 simulator, but the fidelity evidence is too weak and the novel-view generalization is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16940 v1 pith:UBPC52YF submitted 2024-11-25 cs.RO

Georgina Nuthall (1) , Richard Bowden (1) , Oscar Mendez (2) ((1) University of Surrey (2) Locus Robotics) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords neuralradiancefieldsroboticsimulationhuman-robotinteractionsocialforcemodelmulti-sensorphotorealisticrenderingsim-to-realSLAM
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 argues that neural radiance fields—a learned 3D scene representation that renders novel views from photos—can replace manual 3D modeling as the core of a practical robotic simulator. It proposes a dual-NeRF platform: one field reconstructs the static environment from user-supplied video, while a skeleton-conditioned field renders animated human actors whose motion is driven by a social force model. The same radiance field is ray-cast from the robot's viewpoint to generate RGB, depth, and LiDAR outputs, giving vision-based pipelines realistic test data without hand-built assets. If the approach holds, researchers could build high-fidelity, human-inhabited simulation environments from commodity video, reducing the cost of digital twins and narrowing the gap between simulation and real-world robot performance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual-NeRF rendering stack. The background field uses a NeRF with multi-resolution hash encoding and a proposal-based sampler (so training is fast on one GPU), while the human field is a skeleton-conditioned NeRF that can be posed from motion-capture cycles. The mechanism that ties them together is classical volume rendering along rays cast from the robot's cameras and a rotating LiDAR sweep, producing photorealistic RGB, depth, and point clouds from the same implicit representation; a bounding-box visibility pass skips rendering humans outside the robot's field of view to keep the loop efficient.

What would settle it

Train the background NeRF on a robot-driven video tour of one indoor scene, then drive a second robot along a route that was not part of the training footage and capture real sensor data there; if simulated RGB, depth, or LiDAR along that novel route deviates sharply from the real capture, or if a vision pipeline's error in simulation diverges from its error in reality, the platform's claim to general photorealistic simulation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a complete human-robot simulator can be powered entirely by neural rendering. A background NeRF, trained quickly on a single GPU from handheld video with metrically scaled poses, supplies the static scene; a skeleton-conditioned human NeRF trained on motion-capture data supplies photorealistic people; and a social force model controls their trajectories and reactions to the robot. The same implicit scene representation is volume-rendered from the robot's virtual cameras and LiDAR to produce photorealistic RGB, depth, and 360-degree point clouds. The authors report that ORBSLAM3 run on simulated camera images yields median trajectory errors only about 0.1 meters above the same run on real camera footage, and that object detectors achieve higher intersection-over-union in NeRF-rendered scenes than in 3D mesh reconstructions. They state that this is the first complete human-robot simulation system built on neural rendering.

Load-bearing premise

The platform assumes that a NeRF trained from recorded video renders accurate images, depth, and LiDAR for arbitrary new robot paths, so that testing on novel trajectories in simulation faithfully predicts real-robot behavior; the experiments only retrace paths that were recorded in the physical environment, so this generalization is asserted but not yet demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can generate photorealistic, human-populated test scenes for vision-based navigation from short videos of ordinary indoor spaces, without CAD assets.
  • Simulated camera and LiDAR outputs are close enough to real sensors that orbit a standard vision SLAM system's trajectory error differs by only about 0.1 meters from a real-robot run, suggesting sim-to-real transfer of vision pipelines may need less fine-tuning.
  • Object detection networks achieve higher IoU in NeRF-rendered scenes than in 3D mesh reconstructions, indicating that neural rendering preserves the visual statistics detectors rely on more faithfully than meshes.
  • Because human actors are neurally rendered and behavior-driven, the same platform can test human-aware navigation tasks such as yielding and crowd avoidance without pre-scripting actor paths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The evaluation retraces physically recorded trajectories inside the simulator, so the platform's promise for testing arbitrary novel robot paths is asserted rather than demonstrated; a direct test would hold out regions of a scene from training and measure rendering and SLAM degradation as the robot ventures off the captured routes.
  • If the dual-NeRF pattern generalizes, the same approach could extend to multi-robot or outdoor scenes, amortizing the cost of a digital twin across any number of posed neural actors and environments.
  • The bounding-box visibility culling hints at a scalable rendering strategy: precomputing which neural fields are visible from each vantage point would make per-frame cost proportional to visible content rather than total scene size, which could matter as scenes grow.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a ROS2-based robotic simulation platform that combines a background NeRF scene model, a NeuMan-based human NeRF, and a Social Force Model for pedestrian behavior, integrated with a Boston Dynamics Spot agent that provides RGB, depth, and LiDAR outputs. The authors evaluate environment rendering quality, sensor fidelity, ORBSLAM3 localization, and object detection, and they release the simulator code.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would offer an accessible route to photorealistic, dynamic human-robot simulation from commodity video, with two concrete strengths. The project ships public code, and the evaluation uses external benchmarks (ScanNet++), real Spot trajectories, and standard metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS, ORBSLAM3 trajectory error). However, the evidence for the 'high-fidelity' and 'general-purpose' claims is currently incomplete: sensor validation is performed only on retraced trajectories, the simulated RGB camera quality in Table III is much lower than the scene-level numbers in Table I, and the human and Social Force Model components are not quantitatively evaluated. These gaps are fixable with additional experiments, but they are load-bearing.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-C.1] The quantitative sensor and SLAM evaluations all retrace trajectories that were recorded in the physical environment and then replayed in simulation. Because these trajectories lie close to the views used to train the background NeRF, the results do not test the simulator's ability to render novel viewpoints for arbitrary robot paths. Please add a held-out evaluation in which the robot follows trajectories not used during NeRF training (e.g., randomly sampled paths or a separate mapping session), and report the same metrics for those views.
  2. [Table III] The simulated Spot RGB cameras achieve PSNR 9.4-11.8 dB, SSIM 0.28-0.49, and LPIPS 0.42-0.59, while the scene-level renderings in Table I reach PSNR 20.7-23.1 dB. The text states that this 'does not detract from the overall quality,' but these numbers are far below typical photorealistic standards and directly affect the claim of 'high-fidelity, photorealistic' sensor output. Please either improve the camera rendering, report the cause of the gap (e.g., camera model mismatch, resolution, exposure), or temper the claim with quantitative context.
  3. [Section IV-B] The neurally animated human entities are a central contribution, yet Section IV-B provides no quantitative evaluation: no PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS for rendered humans, no pose accuracy, and no comparison against ground-truth or baseline human rendering. Please add quantitative results on held-out poses and a validation of the Social Force Model behavior (e.g., trajectories compared to real pedestrian data or to standard SFM baselines).
  4. [Section IV-C.3] The object-detection experiment on ScanNet++ is summarized only by a qualitative figure without reporting mean IoU/AP, standard deviations, the number of views per scene, or the exact protocol for rendering and detection. Without these numbers, the claim that NeRF-based scenes 'consistently achieve higher IoU' is not verifiable. Please add a results table and a precise evaluation protocol.
  5. [Table II] The depth evaluation reports AbsRel up to 0.67 and δ.05 values around 0.21-0.26 across the Spot cameras. These errors are substantial for a claimed high-fidelity depth sensor; please discuss the acceptable error budget for the intended robotics tasks and compare with sensor noise or with depth outputs from standard simulators.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II-A] The CARLA citation appears as both [11] and [12] for the same work; please unify and check all reference numbering.
  2. [Equations (3)-(4)] The notation in Equations (3)-(4) is incomplete: the summation index and the transmittance product should be defined explicitly, and the upper limit N and sample spacing δ_i should be stated.
  3. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 names the transformation T_robot→human but applies it as p_robot = T_robot→human · p_human; the notation is inconsistent and should be fixed.
  4. [Table II] Table II's column headers δ.05, δ.1, δ.25, δ.252, δ.253 are unclear; if these are δ<1.25, δ<1.25^2, δ<1.25^3, please label them explicitly.
  5. [Figure 5] Figure 5 lacks axis labels and a legend describing the detectors; please add them for readability.
  6. [General] Minor typographical issues include 'manipulation n' in Section II-A and inconsistent cross-reference capitalization (e.g., 'SECTION III-D'); please proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulator is benchmarked against external data and external components; the in-sample trajectory reuse is a generalization caveat, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are empirical and are evaluated against external data: real Spot RGB/depth/LiDAR captures, ScanNet++ scenes, ORBSLAM3, multiple object detectors, and the AMASS motion-capture corpus. The dual-NeRF simulator is assembled from published external components (NeRFacto [41], NeuMan [22], SoFM [19], HuNavSim [34]), so no central result reduces to an argument from the authors' own prior work. The only author-overlapping citation is [40] (Spencer, Russell, Hadfield, Bowden), used as the depth-error evaluation protocol; it contributes metrics (AbsRel and delta thresholds), not the measured values, and is therefore not load-bearing. The sensor/SLAM evaluation does retrace recorded trajectories: 'Spot was manually controlled to map the environment and then autonomously followed the recorded trajectory. In the simulation, we retraced these trajectories.' This means the background NeRF is evaluated near its training views, which limits support for novel-view generalization, but it is a validation gap rather than a circular reduction: rendered images are produced by volume rendering (Eqs. 2-4) rather than read out from the training captures, and the paper does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. RGB, depth, LiDAR, and object-detection numbers are reported against external models and datasets, leaving the central simulator claim with independent content. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on unvalidated deployment assumptions, including novel-view generalization, human-scene composition fidelity, and SoFM realism, plus user-chosen parameters whose values are not reported.

free parameters (3)
  • Social Force Model parameters = not reported, user-configurable defaults
    Controls pedestrian dynamics, collisions, and reactions to the robot; central to the 'realistic human behaviors' claim, but no values or sensitivity analysis are reported in Sections III-B and III-D.
  • NeRF training hyperparameters = not reported
    Needed to reproduce the photorealistic environment and human renderings; the paper cites NeRFacto and NeuMan defaults but does not list actual settings such as iterations, hash-grid resolution, or sampling counts.
  • LiDAR beam and ray sampling configuration = default 16 beams, -15 to 15 degree FoV, N rays over 360 degrees
    Chosen by hand and affects point cloud density and fidelity; reported but no ablation is provided in Section III-C.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A NeRF trained on a captured trajectory can render accurate novel views and sensor data for arbitrary robot paths without additional sim-to-real correction.
    The simulator's usefulness rests on generalization to new viewpoints, but Section IV-C.1 only evaluates retraced trajectories and provides no novel-view validation.
  • domain assumption The NeuMan human NeRF can be driven by arbitrary AMASS or SoFM motion-capture poses and composited with the background NeRF in a shared metric coordinate frame without explicit occlusion handling.
    Human-scene composition is stated in Section III-D but not quantitatively validated for pose fidelity, interpenetration, or lighting consistency.
  • domain assumption The Social Force Model with predefined emotional states adequately represents human-robot social dynamics for navigation testing.
    The paper uses HuNavSim's SoFM pipeline to generate behaviors, but no comparison against real pedestrian trajectories is provided in Section III-B.
  • domain assumption PolyCam or SfM metric-scale camera poses are accurate enough for robot sensor consistency.
    Environment reconstruction relies on user-captured video and metric poses; errors in pose scale would propagate to simulated depth and LiDAR outputs, as noted in Section III-A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Radiance of Neural Fields: Democratizing Photorealistic and Dynamic Robotic Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UBPC52YF

@misc{pith2026241116940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Radiance of Neural Fields: Democratizing Photorealistic and Dynamic Robotic Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UBPC52YF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16940}
}
read the original abstract

As robots increasingly coexist with humans, they must navigate complex, dynamic environments rich in visual information and implicit social dynamics, like when to yield or move through crowds. Addressing these challenges requires significant advances in vision-based sensing and a deeper understanding of socio-dynamic factors, particularly in tasks like navigation. To facilitate this, robotics researchers need advanced simulation platforms offering dynamic, photorealistic environments with realistic actors. Unfortunately, most existing simulators fall short, prioritizing geometric accuracy over visual fidelity, and employing unrealistic agents with fixed trajectories and low-quality visuals. To overcome these limitations, we developed a simulator that incorporates three essential elements: (1) photorealistic neural rendering of environments, (2) neurally animated human entities with behavior management, and (3) an ego-centric robotic agent providing multi-sensor output. By utilizing advanced neural rendering techniques in a dual-NeRF simulator, our system produces high-fidelity, photorealistic renderings of both environments and human entities. Additionally, it integrates a state-of-the-art Social Force Model to model dynamic human-human and human-robot interactions, creating the first photorealistic and accessible human-robot simulation system powered by neural rendering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System Overview – The figure illustrates the components of our simulation pipeline. (1) Shows the training of a local environment based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample Gait Cycle using Motion Capture C. Ego-Centric Robotic Agent Performance To evaluate our simulator’s ability to accurately model the sensor outputs of ego-centric robotic agents, we test its performance using the Spot robot by Boston Dynamics. This evaluation focuses on three key aspects: modeling sensor outputs, implementing a vision-based SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) method, and performing a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Depth Image Comparison: (Left) Real Back Depth Image and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Object Detection Evaluation – Comparison of object detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Front-Left and (Right) Front-Right Simulated Camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Katz, Claire Le Goues, and Christopher S

    Afsoon Afzal, Deborah S. Katz, Claire Le Goues, and Christopher S. Timperley. A study on the challenges of using robotics simulators for testing. 4 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Epstein, and Raj Korpan

    Anoop Aroor, Susan L. Epstein, and Raj Korpan. Mengeros: a crowd simulation tool for autonomous robot navigation. AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report, FS-17-01 - FS-17-05:123–125, 1 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. 2022-June:5460–5469, 11 2021

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Guy, Ming Lin, and Dinesh Manocha

    Jur Van Den Berg, Stephen J. Guy, Ming Lin, and Dinesh Manocha. Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, 70:3–19, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Nerf2real: Sim2real transfer of vision-guided bipedal motion skills using neural radiance fields

    Arunkumar Byravan, Jan Humplik, Leonard Hasenclever, Arthur Brussee, Francesco Nori, Tuomas Haarnoja, Ben Moran, Steven Bo- hez, Fereshteh Sadeghi, Bojan Vujatovic, and Nicolas Heess Deep- mind. Nerf2real: Sim2real transfer of vision-guided bipedal motion skills using neural radiance fields. 10 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Montiel, and Juan D

    Carlos Campos, Richard Elvira, Juan J.Gomez Rodriguez, Jose M.M. Montiel, and Juan D. Tardos. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual-inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics , 37:1874–1890, 12 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo, 2021

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Fuqiang Zhao, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Fanbo Xiang, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A review of physics simulators for robotic applications

    Jack Collins, Shelvin Chand, Anthony Vanderkop, and David Howard. A review of physics simulators for robotic applications. IEEE Access, 9:51416–51431, 2021

    2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Pedestrian simulation using geometric reasoning in velocity space

    Sean Curtis and Dinesh Manocha. Pedestrian simulation using geometric reasoning in velocity space. Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, pages 875–890, 2014

    2012

  2. [10]

    Depth- supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster training for free, 2022

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ramanan. Depth- supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster training for free, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. Carla: An open urban driving simulator. pages 1–16. PMLR, 10 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    CARLA: An open urban driving simulator

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. In Sergey Levine, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Ken Goldberg, editors, Pro- ceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning , volume 78 of Proceedings ...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Glenn Jocher et. al. ultralytics/yolov5: v6.0 - YOLOv5n ’Nano’ models, Roboflow integration, TensorFlow export, OpenCV DNN support, October 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Neural- sim: Learning to generate training data with nerf

    Yunhao Ge, Harkirat Behl, Jiashu Xu, Suriya Gunasekar, Neel Joshi, Yale Song, Xin Wang, Laurent Itti, and Vibhav Vineet. Neural- sim: Learning to generate training data with nerf. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence a...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Fast r-cnn, 2015

    Ross Girshick. Fast r-cnn, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Crowd against the machine: A simulation-based benchmark tool to evaluate and compare robot capa- bilities to navigate a human crowd

    Fabien Grzeskowiak, David Gonon, Daniel Dugas, Diego Paez- Granados, Jen Jen Chung, Juan Nieto, Roland Siegwart, Aude Billard, Marie Babel, and Julien Pettr ´e. Crowd against the machine: A simulation-based benchmark tool to evaluate and compare robot capa- bilities to navigat...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Blensor: Blender sensor simulation toolbox

    Michael Gschwandtner, Roland Kwitt, Andreas Uhl, and Wolfgang Pree. Blensor: Blender sensor simulation toolbox. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 6939 LNCS:199– 208, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    From nerfs to gaussian splats, and back, 2024

    Siming He, Zach Osman, and Pratik Chaudhari. From nerfs to gaussian splats, and back, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Social force model for pedestrian dynamics

    Dirk Helbing and Peter Molnar. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical Review E , 51:4282–4286, 5 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Putting nerf on a diet: Semantically consistent few-shot view synthesis, 2021

    Ajay Jain, Matthew Tancik, and Pieter Abbeel. Putting nerf on a diet: Semantically consistent few-shot view synthesis, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Editable free-viewpoint video using a layered neural representation

    Zhang Jiakai, Liu Xinhang, Ye Xinyi, Zhao Fuqiang, Zhang Yanshun, Wu Minye, Zhang Yingliang, Xu Lan, and Yu Jingyi. Editable free-viewpoint video using a layered neural representation. In ACM SIGGRAPH, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Neuman: Neural human radiance field from a single video, 2022

    Wei Jiang, Kwang Moo Yi, Golnoosh Samei, Oncel Tuzel, and Anurag Ranjan. Neuman: Neural human radiance field from a single video, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    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), July 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator

    Nathan Koenig and Andrew Howard. Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 3:2149–2154, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    Focal loss for dense object detection, 2018

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Troje, Gerard Pons- Moll, and Michael J

    Naureen Mahmood, Nima Ghorbani, Nikolaus F. Troje, Gerard Pons- Moll, and Michael J. Black. AMASS: Archive of motion capture as surface shapes. In International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5442–5451, October 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Sajjadi, Jonathan T

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S.M. Sajjadi, Jonathan T. Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duckworth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for unconstrained photo collections. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Cyberbotics ltd

    Olivier Michel. Cyberbotics ltd. webots™: Professional mobile robot simulation. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems , 1:39– 42, 3 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf. Communications of the ACM, 65:99–106, 12 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encod- ing

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encod- ing. ACM Transactions on Graphics , 41:102, 1 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Isaac platform for robotic

    NVIDIA. Isaac platform for robotic. https://www. nvidia.com/en-gb/deep-learning-ai/industries/ robotics/. (accessed: 29.04.2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    The opengl programming guide

    OpenGL. The opengl programming guide. http://www. opengl-redbook.com/. (accessed: 29.04.2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Parker, James Bigler, Andreas Dietrich, Heiko Friedrich, Jared Hoberock, David Luebke, David McAllister, Morgan McGuire, Keith Morley, Austin Robison, and Martin Stich

    Steven G. Parker, James Bigler, Andreas Dietrich, Heiko Friedrich, Jared Hoberock, David Luebke, David McAllister, Morgan McGuire, Keith Morley, Austin Robison, and Martin Stich. Optix. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 29, 7 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    Hunavsim: A ros 2 human navigation simulator for bench- marking human-aware robot navigation

    No ´e P ´erez-Higueras, Roberto Otero, Fernando Caballero, and Luis Merino. Hunavsim: A ros 2 human navigation simulator for bench- marking human-aware robot navigation. 5 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Yolov3: An incremental improve- ment, 2018

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolov3: An incremental improve- ment, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Open Robotics. Gazebo. https://gazebosim.org/home. (accessed: 29.04.2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Singh, and Marc Freese

    Eric Rohmer, Surya P.N. Singh, and Marc Freese. V-rep: A versatile and scalable robot simulation framework. IEEE International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 1321–1326, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm

    Johannes L. Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from- motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles

    Shital Shah, Debadeepta Dey, Chris Lovett, and Ashish Kapoor. Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles. Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics , 5:621–635, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Kick back & relax: Learning to reconstruct the world by watching slowtv, 2023

    Jaime Spencer, Chris Russell, Simon Hadfield, and Richard Bowden. Kick back & relax: Learning to reconstruct the world by watching slowtv, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development

    Matthew Tancik, Ethan Weber, Evonne Ng, Ruilong Li, Brent Yi, Justin Kerr, Terrance Wang, Alexander Kristoffersen, Jake Austin, Kamyar Salahi, Abhik Ahuja, David McAllister, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. 2 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 5026–5033, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Sohn, Greg Schwartz, Subashri Ramesh, Mohamed Hussein, Anjali W

    Nathan Tsoi, Alec Xiang, Peter Yu, Samuel S. Sohn, Greg Schwartz, Subashri Ramesh, Mohamed Hussein, Anjali W. Gupta, Mubbasir Kapadia, and Marynel Vazquez. Sean 2.0: Formalizing and generating social situations for robot navigation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7:1104...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with enhanced performance and robustness

    Rejin Varghese and Sambath M. Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with enhanced performance and robustness. In 2024 Inter- national Conference on Advances in Data Engineering and Intelligent Computing Systems (ADICS) , pages 1–6, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Barron, and Pratul P

    Dor Verbin, Peter Hedman, Ben Mildenhall, Todd Zickler, Jonathan T. Barron, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Ref-nerf: Structured view-dependent appearance for neural radiance fields. Proceedings of the IEEE Com- puter Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Suhani V ora, Noha Radwan, Klaus Greff, Henning Meyer, Kyle Genova, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Etienne Pot, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Daniel Duckworth. Nesf: Neural semantic fields for generalizable semantic segmentation of 3d scenes. 11 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven manipulation of neural radiance fields, 2022

    Can Wang, Menglei Chai, Mingming He, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven manipulation of neural radiance fields, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information

    Chien-Yao Wang and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information. 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters

    Zirui Wang, Shangzhe Wu, Weidi Xie, Min Chen, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters. 2 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Chung-Yi Weng, Brian Curless, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Bar- ron, and Ira Kemelmacher-Shlizerman. HumanNeRF: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), p...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes

    Chandan Yeshwanth, Yueh-Cheng Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Nerf-editing: Geometry editing of neural radiance fields, 2022

    Yu-Jie Yuan, Yang-Tian Sun, Yu-Kun Lai, Yuewen Ma, Rongfei Jia, and Lin Gao. Nerf-editing: Geometry editing of neural radiance fields, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Shuaifeng Zhi, Tristan Laidlow, Stefan Leutenegger, and Andrew J. Davison. In-place scene labelling and understanding with implicit scene representation, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

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