Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Differentiable Inverse Rendering with Interpretable Basis BRDFs

T0 review · 3 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 A differentiable inverse-rendering method yields spatially separated, interpretable basis BRDFs while reconstructing accurate geometry.

desk verdict Credible incremental inverse-rendering paper with a real geometry win; the 'automatic' basis-count adaptation is undercut by per-scene threshold tuning, but the core method deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17994 v2 pith:VOGVOCT5 submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CV cs.GR

Hoon-Gyu Chung , Seokjun Choi , Seung-Hwan Baek This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords inverserenderingbasisBRDF2DGaussiansplattingsparsityregularizationSVBRDFrelightingsceneeditingdifferentiable
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

From multi-view flash photographs, the authors reconstruct both 3D geometry and surface reflectance by representing the scene as a collection of 2D Gaussian splats, each with a reflectance given by a weighted blend of a small set of basis BRDFs. The core claim is that adding a sparsity prior on the per-splat weights and letting the number of basis BRDFs grow or shrink during optimization makes those basis BRDFs align with actual materials in the scene, so one basis BRDF tends to describe one object or surface region. If correct, this turns an inverse-rendering pipeline into a scene editor: materials can be selected, recolored, or replaced by editing a few parameters, and the reconstructed geometry supports physically based relighting. The authors report the most accurate surface normals among the compared methods and demonstrate editing on synthetic and real scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of a low-temperature softmax on basis weights and an entropy sparsity regularizer, combined with merge and removal rules keyed to radiometric and geometric similarity. The low-temperature softmax pushes each Gaussian's weight vector toward one-hot; the sparsity regularizer penalizes diffuse weight assignments both per Gaussian and in the rendered weight images; merge deletes a basis when its sampled BRDF values are close to another basis's and its associated Gaussians occupy overlapping space; removal deletes a basis whose rendered weight map exceeds a coverage threshold on too few pixels. These mechanisms convert a continuous optimization into a discrete, adaptive selection of materials.

What would settle it

Render or capture a scene with strong interreflections or a material whose BRDF is far from the Disney family, run the method, and check whether the recovered basis BRDFs stay spatially separated and whether novel-view relighting under different lights matches ground truth; a failure would show up either as entangled weight maps or as a large relighting error that the sparsity loss alone cannot explain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that interpretable material decomposition is not a separate post-processing step but an outcome of the optimization itself. The method keeps a fixed number of basis BRDFs during a warm start, then repeatedly merges pairs that are both radiometrically similar and geometrically similar, removes bases that cover almost no pixels, and applies an entropy-based sparsity loss to per-Gaussian weights and to rendered weight maps. The result is a representation in which each spatial point is described by one or a few basis BRDFs, the bases correspond to visually distinct materials, and the number of bases adapts to scene complexity. This is what enables editing operations such as changing a glass material to silver and extracting a single object's mesh for environment relighting.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that real surface reflectance can be approximated well by a small number of simplified Disney BRDFs blended sparsely per point, under direct point-light illumination only, without giving up reconstruction fidelity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Novel-view relighting becomes physically based, using reconstructed normals and basis BRDFs, without a residual network to hide geometry errors.
  • Scene editing reduces to editing the parameters of a few basis BRDFs, such as base color, roughness, and metallic, and selecting Gaussians by their dominant basis weight.
  • Object extraction is possible by pruning Gaussians whose highest-weight basis BRDF is not the selected one, enabling mesh extraction and environment relighting.
  • The number of basis BRDFs scales with scene complexity: simple scenes end with fewer bases, while complex multi-object scenes keep more.
  • Training time is much shorter than neural-SDF baselines because the representation is rasterization-based and does not require a large implicit network.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The merge and removal thresholds are hand-set per scene in the paper, so a natural extension is to choose them automatically via a held-out validation loss, which could remove the per-scene tuning described in the supplement.
  • The same sparse-basis formulation might transfer to other primitive types beyond 2D Gaussians, or to appearance properties beyond BRDFs, wherever spatial coherence can be exploited.
  • Because sparsity directly trades reconstruction fidelity, an interesting testable extension is an adaptive sparsity weight that tightens only after material separation stabilizes, potentially recovering some of the lost PSNR without losing interpretability.
  • If the method is right, it suggests that interpretability in inverse rendering is largely a sparsity property of the representation rather than a property of the network or basis choice.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a differentiable inverse rendering approach that represents a scene with 2D Gaussians whose reflectance is a sparse blend of basis BRDFs modeled by a simplified Disney BRDF. During optimization, the method applies a low-temperature softmax, an entropy sparsity regularizer, and heuristic merge/removal rules to reduce the number of basis BRDFs and encourage spatially separated weights. The authors evaluate on four synthetic multi-view flash scenes and one real-world scene, reporting improved normal reconstruction (MAE 9.81 vs. 15.28 for GS3), faster training (0.5h vs. 2h for GS3), and novel-view relighting results (31.78 PSNR vs. 38.93 for GS3, which is lower than GS3). They also demonstrate reflectance editing and mesh extraction.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper's contributions would provide an efficient inverse rendering pipeline with editable and relightable scene representations, and a mechanism that adapts the number of material bases. Strengths include the clear formulation of an interpretability objective via sparsity, the merge/removal machinery, an evaluation showing substantial geometry improvements over strong baselines, and a very competitive training time. The main weaknesses are that the adaptive basis-count behavior relies on per-scene tuning of thresholds, the interpretability is not quantified, and the fidelity cost of sparsity is not isolated in the relighting comparison. These gaps currently prevent the paper from fully supporting its headline claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Supplemental 3.6–3.7] The central claim that the method 'dynamically adjusts the number of basis BRDFs to fit the target scene' is not yet supported by a fixed-parameter evaluation. The supplemental states that 'we find appropriate merge threshold τ_merge for each complex scene' (Supp. 3.6) and reports that removal thresholds are set 'for this scene' (Supp. 3.7), indicating that the final basis count depends on manual, per-scene hyperparameters. As a result, the adaptive behavior could be an artifact of threshold tuning rather than an emergent property of the optimization. I request a sensitivity study that sweeps τ_merge and the removal thresholds while keeping them fixed across scenes of varying complexity, and a report of the resulting basis counts and reconstruction quality.
  2. [Section 4 / Figure 6] The interpretability claim is supported only by qualitative visualizations. Figure 6 and the supplemental figures show spatially separated weight maps, but there is no quantitative metric, no user study, and no comparison with ground-truth material or object segmentations. This matters because the sparsity loss and low-temperature softmax (Eqs. 9–10) directly enforce sparse weights, so observing sparse weight maps could simply reflect the optimization objective. I recommend adding a quantitative evaluation, e.g., measuring agreement of weight-map clusters with object masks, computing a spatial-separation index, or running a perceptual user study.
  3. [Supplemental Table 1 / Table 2] The paper does not isolate the fidelity cost of interpretability in relighting. Supplemental Table 1 shows that adding L_sparse lowers PSNR from 34.13 to 31.78, but the main-text relighting comparison (Table 2) only reports the full method, and the paper does not report relighting PSNR for the variant without L_sparse. Since the interpretation is that sparse representation sacrifices fidelity, the reader cannot tell whether the 31.78 PSNR is acceptable or whether the sparse prior is the cause. Additionally, no error bars or multiple-seed runs are provided for Table 1, so the significance of the MAE improvement cannot be assessed. Please report results with confidence intervals and a no-sparsity relighting baseline.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The row labelled 'Train' is ambiguous; it should be labelled 'Training time' and the units (hours) should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The notation 'GS3' and 'GS 3' is used inconsistently in the caption and text; please unify the notation.
  3. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'especially for thin and convex objects' is vague; please specify how thin and convex objects are identified or give per-object results to substantiate the claim.
  4. [Section 2] The description of Zhou et al. [49] would benefit from a clear statement of what is inherited and what is novel beyond adding a differentiable pipeline; as written, the distinction is implicit.
  5. [Supplemental 4.2] The supplementary correctly lists global illumination as a limitation; please also mention this limitation in the main text's conclusion or discussion so that readers of the main paper are aware of it.
  6. [Section 3.1 / Supplemental 3.5] The number of initialized basis BRDFs N is a free parameter, but the ablation only tests N=9 and N=15; please report the effect of N on the final number of basis BRDFs across different scene complexities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core rendering-and-loss derivation is self-contained; the sparse/interpretable basis-BRDF behavior is the explicit optimization objective, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: a forward rendering model (Eqs. 1-5), a rendering loss (Eq. 8), and clearly disclosed regularizers (Eqs. 9-10) directly encourage sparse per-Gaussian weights and sparse weight images. Observing spatially separated basis-BRDF weights after optimizing L_sparse is a consequence of the designed objective, not a hidden reuse of outputs as inputs; the controlled ablation in Supplemental Table 1, where removing L_sparse gives non-interpretable weights and higher PSNR (34.13 vs 31.78), makes the causal role empirically checkable. The adaptive basis count is produced by an explicit merge/removal rule (Eqs. 12-15), and the supplemental disclosure that tau_merge is selected per scene (Sections 3.6-3.7) is a generalization and robustness limitation rather than circularity, because the rule does not assume the final count as an input. The only self-citation ([7], DPIR) is used as a comparison baseline and is not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or author-imported ansatz is invoked to force the result. The claimed interpretability is engineered through the loss, but the paper presents it as a method contribution with trade-offs rather than as an emergent prediction, so there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

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

The method rests on a generative model built from 2D Gaussian splatting and a simplified Disney BRDF basis, plus a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters and schedules that produce the interpretability effect. No new physical entities or conserved quantities are introduced. The sparse-interpretability result is constructed by the loss and control rules rather than discovered independently.

free parameters (7)
  • Initial basis count N = 12 (9 and 15 tested)
    Chosen per experiment for reconstruction quality and interpretability; affects the final number of materials and the capacity of the representation.
  • Softmax temperature T = 0.0125
    Low temperature forces per-Gaussian weights toward one-hot vectors; this is the central mechanism behind sparse interpretability (Eq. 9).
  • Merge threshold tau_merge = scene-dependent, e.g., 0.4
    Two basis BRDFs are merged when their radiometric difference is below this threshold and the geometric difference is minimal; selected manually per scene in Supplemental Sec. 3.6.
  • Removal thresholds tau_removal-weight, tau_removal-number = 0.1, 0.005
    Decide when a basis BRDF covers too few pixels and is deleted from the representation (Eq. 15).
  • Specular weighting lambda_theta_h and k = 5 and 10
    Weights the photometric loss toward potentially specular pixels (Eq. 7), which changes the balance between diffuse and specular reconstruction.
  • Loss balancing weights = not fully specified
    lambda_geom, lambda_mask, lambda_s, and lambda_sparse appear in Eqs. 6 and 16 and in Supplemental Eq. 9, but their numerical values are not listed.
  • Regularization schedule = sparsity at 5000/9000 iterations, control after 6000 every 500
    Hand-set timing determines when the sparsity loss and basis merge/removal rules begin operating; this schedule affects the final basis set.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Simplified Disney BRDF with spherical-Gaussian NDF, Schlick Fresnel, and GGX geometry is a valid material model for the captured scenes.
    Eq. 1 and Supplemental Sec. 1.1 constrain every basis material to this parametric family; materials outside this family cannot be represented exactly.
  • domain assumption Direct point-light illumination only; global illumination and cast shadows are negligible.
    Eq. 4 and Supplemental Sec. 4.1 and 4.2 explicitly neglect indirect light and shadows, relying on co-located flash photography to make this plausible.
  • domain assumption 2D Gaussian splatting with alpha blending faithfully represents the scene's surface geometry and appearance.
    Eq. 5 and Supplemental Sec. 1.2 use 2DGS as the differentiable renderer; the fidelity of the recovered geometry depends on this representation.
  • domain assumption Multi-view co-located flash photographs provide enough angular coverage to disambiguate geometry and BRDFs.
    The entire evaluation assumes this input configuration; no failure analysis for sparse views or alternate lighting is given.
  • ad hoc to paper K-means-initialized base colors are sufficient starting points for basis BRDF optimization.
    Supplemental Sec. 1.5 initializes base colors with k-means cluster means; this is a paper-specific heuristic that can affect which local optimum is found.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differentiable Inverse Rendering with Interpretable Basis BRDFs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOGVOCT5

@misc{pith2026241117994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differentiable Inverse Rendering with Interpretable Basis BRDFs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOGVOCT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17994}
}
read the original abstract

Inverse rendering seeks to reconstruct both geometry and spatially varying BRDFs (SVBRDFs) from captured images. To address the inherent ill-posedness of inverse rendering, basis BRDF representations are commonly used, modeling SVBRDFs as spatially varying blends of a set of basis BRDFs. However, existing methods often yield basis BRDFs that lack intuitive separation and have limited scalability to scenes of varying complexity. In this paper, we introduce a differentiable inverse rendering method that produces interpretable basis BRDFs. Our approach models a scene using 2D Gaussians, where the reflectance of each Gaussian is defined by a weighted blend of basis BRDFs. We efficiently render an image from the 2D Gaussians and basis BRDFs using differentiable rasterization and impose a rendering loss with the input images. During this analysis-by-synthesis optimization process of differentiable inverse rendering, we dynamically adjust the number of basis BRDFs to fit the target scene while encouraging sparsity in the basis weights. This ensures that the reflectance of each Gaussian is represented by only a few basis BRDFs. This approach enables the reconstruction of accurate geometry and interpretable basis BRDFs that are spatially separated. Consequently, the resulting scene representation, comprising basis BRDFs and 2D Gaussians, supports physically-based novel-view relighting and intuitive scene editing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose a differentiable inverse rendering method with (a) multi-view flash photography inputs. Our analysis-by-synthesis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The process of our analysis-by-synthesis iterations. Given a set of multi-view photometric images, we initialize point cloud and extract base color for basis BRDFs. We jointly optimize 2D Gaussians and basis BRDFs by comparing the differentiably-rendered images and the input images. Our method enables obtaining interpretable basis BRDFs with spatially-separated basis-BRDF weights and the number of basis BRDFs adapts… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Basis BRDFs with varying scene complexity. We ad￾just the number of basis BRDFs during analysis-by-synthesis it￾erations to adapt to the scene complexity. We initialize the same number of basis BRDFs for both scenes in this example. We use the potentially-specular weight map H for calcu￾lating the final rendering loss: \label {eq:weighted_photometric_loss} \mathcal {L}_{\text {render}} = \frac {1}{|U|} \sum _{u \in … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Basis BRDF control. During the analysis-by-synthesis optimization, we compute the values of each basis BRDF for sampled half-way angles θh from which radiometric difference is obtained. We compute the geometric difference between point clouds of basis BRDFs. If two bas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normal reconstruction. Our method successfully recovers the detailed surface normal, outperforming other state-of-the-art inverse rendering methods: IRON [44], DPIR [7], GS3 [2]. from Equation (11) as: \label {eq:delete} \frac { |\{ u \in U | W_{i}(u) > \tau _{\text {r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Basis BRDFs and weight maps. Our inverse-rendering methods (Section 3.1 and Section 3.2) obtain basis BRDFs that are explainable with spatially separated weight maps and intuitive basis BRDFs, compared to GS3 [2] and DPIR [7]. GT image IRON DPIR GS3 Ours GT [PITH_FULL…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Novel-view relighting. Our method enables high quality novel-view relighting with the accurate surface normal. We achieve physically-valid relighting with accurate normal and basis BRDFs. number of basis BRDFs, limited to modeling different com￾plexity of scenes. In co…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Impact of sparsity regularizer and basis BRDF control. Without sparsity loss and basis BRDF control of merge and removal, the resulting basis BRDFs are blended each other as shown in the corresponding images, making them non￾interpretable for downstream tasks. Without…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Intuitive scene editing. We modify our basis BRDF parameters to edit the reflectance. We also selectively extract mesh and relight it under the environment map. 4.3. Ablation Study Sparsity Regularizer Lsparse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Impact of softmax function with low temperature. Low temperature softmax function results in interpretable basis BRDFs and images. We employ T = 0.0125 in our experiment. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Impact of the mask input. Without mask loss, weight maps are non-intuitive, and the edge is unclear. 3.5. Number of Initialized Basis BRDFs We evaluate the impact of the number of initialized basis BRDFs. We test our method on complex scenes with multi-object which nee…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Impact of the number of initialized basis BRDFs. With a small number of initialized basis BRDFs, basis BRDFs are non￾interpretable, and weight maps are not spatially separated. We utilize N = 12 in our experiment. 3.6. Threshold for Basis BRDF Merge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Importance of merge threshold. Merge threshold τmerge directly affects the interpretability and scalability of basis BRDFs. If τmerge is too large, distinguishable basis BRDFs are merged excessively. If τmerge is too small, similar basis BRDFs are not merged. We utiliz…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Importance of removal thresholds. Removal thresholds τremoval-weight and τremoval-weight determine which unnecessary basis BRDF to be removed. With small τremoval-weight, unnecessary basis BRDFs are not removed, resulting in non-interpretable basis BRDFs. If τremoval-n…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relighting with point light sources. We render 4 complex scenes with a moving point light source. Edit #1 Edit #2 Edit #3 Edit #4 Scene #1 Scene #2 Estimated image and basis BRDFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intuitive reflectance editing. We efficiently edit reflectance by modifying parameters of basis BRDFs. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reconstruction results of scene #2 on the synthetic photometric dataset. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reconstruction results of scene #3 on the synthetic photometric dataset. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Reconstruction results of scene #4 on the synthetic photometric dataset. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows a visualization of a complex scene in a real-world photometric dataset. Our method achieves accurate reconstruction of geometry and interpretable basis BRDFs from multi-view flash images. Basis BRDF images GT Rendered image Normal Depth Basis BRDF weight maps Ba…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Hybrid Neural-Microfacet BRDF Model for Real-Time Rendering

    cs.GR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hybrid BRDF model, combining a GGX analytical term with a tiny learned residual and gating network, fits measured materials more accurately than fully neural models at equal memory cost.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  3. [3]

    Photometric stereo with non-parametric and spatially-varying reflectance

    Neil Alldrin, Todd Zickler, and David Kriegman. Photometric stereo with non-parametric and spatially-varying reflectance. In 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1--8. IEEE, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Gs 3 : Efficient relighting with triple gaussian splatting

    Zoubin Bi, Yixin Zeng, Chong Zeng, Fan Pei, Xiang Feng, Kun Zhou, and Hongzhi Wu. Gs 3 : Efficient relighting with triple gaussian splatting. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Nerd: Neural reflectance decomposition from image collections

    Mark Boss, Raphael Braun, Varun Jampani, Jonathan T Barron, Ce Liu, and Hendrik Lensch. Nerd: Neural reflectance decomposition from image collections. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 12684--12694, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Samurai: Shape and material from unconstrained real-world arbitrary image collections

    Mark Boss, Andreas Engelhardt, Abhishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Deqing Sun, Jonathan Barron, Hendrik Lensch, and Varun Jampani. Samurai: Shape and material from unconstrained real-world arbitrary image collections. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:26389--26403, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Neural-pil: Neural pre-integrated lighting for reflectance decomposition

    Mark Boss, Varun Jampani, Raphael Braun, Ce Liu, Jonathan Barron, and Hendrik Lensch. Neural-pil: Neural pre-integrated lighting for reflectance decomposition. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. , 34:10691--10704, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Rnb-neus: Reflectance and normal-based multi-view 3d reconstruction

    Baptiste Brument, Robin Bruneau, Yvain Qu \'e au, Jean M \'e lou, Fran c ois Bernard Lauze, Jean-Denis Durou, and Lilian Calvet. Rnb-neus: Reflectance and normal-based multi-view 3d reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5230--5239, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Differentiable point-based inverse rendering

    Hoon-Gyu Chung, Seokjun Choi, and Seung-Hwan Baek. Differentiable point-based inverse rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4399--4409, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels

    Pinxuan Dai, Jiamin Xu, Wenxiang Xie, Xinguo Liu, Huamin Wang, and Weiwei Xu. High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , pages 1--11, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Shinobi: Shape and illumination using neural object decomposition via brdf optimization in-the-wild

    Andreas Engelhardt, Amit Raj, Mark Boss, Yunzhi Zhang, Abhishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Deqing Sun, Ricardo Martin Brualla, Jonathan T Barron, Hendrik Lensch, et al. Shinobi: Shape and illumination using neural object decomposition via brdf optimization in-the-wild. In Proceedings o...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Vminer: Versatile multi-view inverse rendering with near-and far-field light sources

    Fan Fei, Jiajun Tang, Ping Tan, and Boxin Shi. Vminer: Versatile multi-view inverse rendering with near-and far-field light sources. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 11800--11809, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Relightable 3d gaussian: Real-time point cloud relighting with brdf decomposition and ray tracing

    Jian Gao, Chun Gu, Youtian Lin, Hao Zhu, Xun Cao, Li Zhang, and Yao Yao. Relightable 3d gaussian: Real-time point cloud relighting with brdf decomposition and ray tracing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16043 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Shape and spatially-varying brdfs from photometric stereo

    Dan B Goldman, Brian Curless, Aaron Hertzmann, and Steven M Seitz. Shape and spatially-varying brdfs from photometric stereo. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 32(6):1060--1071, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , pages 1--11, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Shape and spatially-varying reflectance estimation from virtual exemplars

    Zhuo Hui and Aswin C Sankaranarayanan. Shape and spatially-varying reflectance estimation from virtual exemplars. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 39(10):2060--2073, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Gaussianshader: 3d gaussian splatting with shading functions for reflective surfaces

    Yingwenqi Jiang, Jiadong Tu, Yuan Liu, Xifeng Gao, Xiaoxiao Long, Wenping Wang, and Yuexin Ma. Gaussianshader: 3d gaussian splatting with shading functions for reflective surfaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 532...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Tensoir: Tensorial inverse rendering

    Haian Jin, Isabella Liu, Peijia Xu, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Songfang Han, Sai Bi, Xiaowei Zhou, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. Tensoir: Tensorial inverse rendering. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 165--174, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk \"u hler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph. , 42(4):1--14, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Inverse shade trees for non-parametric material representation and editing

    Jason Lawrence, Aner Ben-Artzi, Christopher DeCoro, Wojciech Matusik, Hanspeter Pfister, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Szymon Rusinkiewicz. Inverse shade trees for non-parametric material representation and editing. ACM Trans. Graph. , 25(3):735--745, 2006

    2006

  13. [21]

    Image-based reconstruction of spatially varying materials

    Hendrik PA Lensch, Jan Kautz, Michael Goesele, Wolfgang Heidrich, and Hans-Peter Seidel. Image-based reconstruction of spatially varying materials. In Rendering Techniques 2001: Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop in London, United Kingdom, June 25--27, 2001 12 , pages 10...

    2001

  14. [22]

    Image-based reconstruction of spatial appearance and geometric detail

    Hendrik PA Lensch, Jan Kautz, Michael Goesele, Wolfgang Heidrich, and Hans-Peter Seidel. Image-based reconstruction of spatial appearance and geometric detail. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 22(2):234--257, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    Inverse rendering for complex indoor scenes: Shape, spatially-varying lighting and svbrdf from a single image

    Zhengqin Li, Mohammad Shafiei, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Manmohan Chandraker. Inverse rendering for complex indoor scenes: Shape, spatially-varying lighting and svbrdf from a single image. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 2475--2484, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Learning to reconstruct shape and spatially-varying reflectance from a single image

    Zhengqin Li, Zexiang Xu, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Manmohan Chandraker. Learning to reconstruct shape and spatially-varying reflectance from a single image. ACM Trans. Graph. , 37(6):1--11, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Gs-ir: 3d gaussian splatting for inverse rendering

    Zhihao Liang, Qi Zhang, Ying Feng, Ying Shan, and Kui Jia. Gs-ir: 3d gaussian splatting for inverse rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 21644--21653, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Materialfusion: Enhancing inverse rendering with material diffusion priors

    Yehonathan Litman, Or Patashnik, Kangle Deng, Aviral Agrawal, Rushikesh Zawar, Fernando De la Torre, and Shubham Tulsiani. Materialfusion: Enhancing inverse rendering with material diffusion priors. ArXiv , 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Nero: Neural geometry and brdf reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images

    Yuan Liu, Peng Wang, Cheng Lin, Xiaoxiao Long, Jiepeng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Nero: Neural geometry and brdf reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17398 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A data-driven reflectance model

    Wojciech Matusik. A data-driven reflectance model . PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    Efficient isotropic brdf measurement

    Wojciech Matusik, Hanspeter Pfister, Matthew Brand, and Leonard McMillan. Efficient isotropic brdf measurement. 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99--106, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Practical svbrdf acquisition of 3d objects with unstructured flash photography

    Giljoo Nam, Joo Ho Lee, Diego Gutierrez, and Min H Kim. Practical svbrdf acquisition of 3d objects with unstructured flash photography. ACM Trans. Graph. , 37(6):1--12, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    A diffusion approach to radiance field relighting using multi-illumination synthesis

    Yohan Poirier-Ginter, Alban Gauthier, Julien Phillip, J-F Lalonde, and George Drettakis. A diffusion approach to radiance field relighting using multi-illumination synthesis. In Computer Graphics Forum , volume 43, page e15147. Wiley Online Library, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Pocket reflectometry

    Peiran Ren, Jiaping Wang, John Snyder, Xin Tong, and Baining Guo. Pocket reflectometry. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 30(4):1--10, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Single-shot neural relighting and svbrdf estimation

    Shen Sang and Manmohan Chandraker. Single-shot neural relighting and svbrdf estimation. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 85--101. Springer, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Neural inverse rendering of an indoor scene from a single image

    Soumyadip Sengupta, Jinwei Gu, Kihwan Kim, Guilin Liu, David W Jacobs, and Jan Kautz. Neural inverse rendering of an indoor scene from a single image. In Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 8598--8607, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Gir: 3d gaussian inverse rendering for relightable scene factorization

    Yahao Shi, Yanmin Wu, Chenming Wu, Xing Liu, Chen Zhao, Haocheng Feng, Jingtuo Liu, Liangjun Zhang, Jian Zhang, Bin Zhou, et al. Gir: 3d gaussian inverse rendering for relightable scene factorization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05133 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nerv: Neural reflectance and visibility fields for relighting and view synthesis

    Pratul P Srinivasan, Boyang Deng, Xiuming Zhang, Matthew Tancik, Ben Mildenhall, and Jonathan T Barron. Nerv: Neural reflectance and visibility fields for relighting and view synthesis. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 7495--7504, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Inverse rendering of glossy objects via the neural plenoptic function and radiance fields

    Haoyuan Wang, Wenbo Hu, Lei Zhu, and Rynson WH Lau. Inverse rendering of glossy objects via the neural plenoptic function and radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 19999--20008, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Object-based illumination estimation with rendering-aware neural networks

    Xin Wei, Guojun Chen, Yue Dong, Stephen Lin, and Xin Tong. Object-based illumination estimation with rendering-aware neural networks. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 380--396. Springer, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Nefii: Inverse rendering for reflectance decomposition with near-field indirect illumination

    Haoqian Wu, Zhipeng Hu, Lincheng Li, Yongqiang Zhang, Changjie Fan, and Xin Yu. Nefii: Inverse rendering for reflectance decomposition with near-field indirect illumination. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4295--4304, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Chen Xi, Peng Sida, Yang Dongchen, Liu Yuan, Pan Bowen, Lv Chengfei, and Zhou. Xiaowei. Intrinsicanything: Learning diffusion priors for inverse rendering under unknown illumination. 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Ps-nerf: Neural inverse rendering for multi-view photometric stereo

    Wenqi Yang, Guanying Chen, Chaofeng Chen, Zhenfang Chen, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. Ps-nerf: Neural inverse rendering for multi-view photometric stereo. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. , pages 266--284. Springer, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Neilf: Neural incident light field for physically-based material estimation

    Yao Yao, Jingyang Zhang, Jingbo Liu, Yihang Qu, Tian Fang, David McKinnon, Yanghai Tsin, and Long Quan. Neilf: Neural incident light field for physically-based material estimation. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 700--716. Springer, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Inverserendernet: Learning single image inverse rendering

    Ye Yu and William AP Smith. Inverserendernet: Learning single image inverse rendering. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 3155--3164, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Relighting neural radiance fields with shadow and highlight hints

    Chong Zeng, Guojun Chen, Yue Dong, Pieter Peers, Hongzhi Wu, and Xin Tong. Relighting neural radiance fields with shadow and highlight hints. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings , 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Iron: Inverse rendering by optimizing neural sdfs and materials from photometric images

    Kai Zhang, Fujun Luan, Zhengqi Li, and Noah Snavely. Iron: Inverse rendering by optimizing neural sdfs and materials from photometric images. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 5565--5574, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Physg: Inverse rendering with spherical gaussians for physics-based material editing and relighting

    Kai Zhang, Fujun Luan, Qianqian Wang, Kavita Bala, and Noah Snavely. Physg: Inverse rendering with spherical gaussians for physics-based material editing and relighting. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 5453--5462, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Nerfactor: Neural factorization of shape and reflectance under an unknown illumination

    Xiuming Zhang, Pratul P Srinivasan, Boyang Deng, Paul Debevec, William T Freeman, and Jonathan T Barron. Nerfactor: Neural factorization of shape and reflectance under an unknown illumination. ACM Trans. Graph. , 40(6):1--18, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Modeling indirect illumination for inverse rendering

    Yuanqing Zhang, Jiaming Sun, Xingyi He, Huan Fu, Rongfei Jia, and Xiaowei Zhou. Modeling indirect illumination for inverse rendering. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. , pages 18643--18652, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Surfel-based gaussian inverse rendering for fast and relightable dynamic human reconstruction from monocular video

    Yiqun Zhao, Chenming Wu, Binbin Huang, Yihao Zhi, Chen Zhao, Jingdong Wang, and Shenghua Gao. Surfel-based gaussian inverse rendering for fast and relightable dynamic human reconstruction from monocular video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15212 , 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Sparse-as-possible svbrdf acquisition

    Zhiming Zhou, Guojun Chen, Yue Dong, David Wipf, Yong Yu, John Snyder, and Xin Tong. Sparse-as-possible svbrdf acquisition. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 35(6):1--12, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Irisformer: Dense vision transformers for single-image inverse rendering in indoor scenes

    Rui Zhu, Zhengqin Li, Janarbek Matai, Fatih Porikli, and Manmohan Chandraker. Irisformer: Dense vision transformers for single-image inverse rendering in indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2822--2831, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Gs-ror: 3d gaussian splatting for reflective object relighting via sdf priors

    Zuo-Liang Zhu, Beibei Wang, and Jian Yang. Gs-ror: 3d gaussian splatting for reflective object relighting via sdf priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18544 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2023

  47. [55]

    Microfacet models for refraction through rough surfaces

    Bruce Walter, Stephen R Marschner, Hongsong Li, and Kenneth E Torrance. Microfacet models for refraction through rough surfaces. Rendering techniques , 2007:18th, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Differentiable point-based radiance fields for efficient view synthesis

    Qiang Zhang, Seung-Hwan Baek, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Felix Heide. Differentiable point-based radiance fields for efficient view synthesis. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers , pages 1--12, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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