Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

CrossSDF: 3D Reconstruction of Thin Structures From Cross-Sections

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CrossSDF reconstructs thin 3D structures from planar cross-sections by training a neural signed distance field with a symmetric-difference loss, avoiding the interpolation artifacts and over-smoothing of prior methods.

desk verdict CrossSDF is a genuinely novel and well-engineered method, but its own connected-component numbers contradict the 'no breakages' headline and need to be addressed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04120 v3 pith:5JQ2L3G2 submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CV

Thomas Walker , Salvatore Esposito , Daniel Rebain , Amir Vaxman , Arno Onken , Changjian Li , Oisin Mac Aodha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords neuralsigneddistancefieldscross-sectionreconstructionthinstructuressymmetricdifferencelosshashencodingFourierfeaturesCTscanimplicitrepresentations
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

CrossSDF sets out to reconstruct a complete 3D shape from a sparse set of planar cross-sections, where the geometry is known only as 2D contours on arbitrarily oriented planes. The paper argues that fitting a neural signed distance field directly to the in-plane 2D distances produces laddering artifacts because the field is forced to match distance values that are only meaningful inside each slice. Its fix is to supervise the field only on the contour itself and on the symmetric difference between the predicted and target inside/outside classification, leaving the rest of each plane free to behave as a genuine 3D distance field. Combined with per-contour adaptive sampling and a hybrid hash-plus-Fourier encoding, the method claims accurate reconstructions of thin branching structures such as blood vessels, where point-cloud baselines break and prior bespoke methods over-smooth. If true, this would give slice-based domains such as medical imaging a way to recover fine topology from sparse scans without interpolation artifacts.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetric-difference loss. Given planar samples with known 2D distance values, define $\Omega_{on} = \{x : f_{2D}(x) = 0\}$ and $\Omega_{off} = \{x : f_{2D}(x) \neq 0 \text{ and } \operatorname{sign}(f(x;\theta)) \neq \operatorname{sign}(f_{2D}(x))\}$. The loss is $\mathcal{L}_{on} = \mathbb{E}_{x\in\Omega_{on}} |f(x;\theta) - f_{2D}(x)|$ plus $\mathcal{L}_{off} = \mathbb{E}_{x\in\Omega_{off}} (f(x;\theta) - f_{2D}(x))^2$, so the network receives distance supervision only on the contour and where the predicted and target interiors disagree. This region shrinks to zero as the predicted surface aligns with the target contour, freeing the field to be a true 3D SDF between planes. Two auxiliary mechanisms carry much of the practical performance: the hybrid encoding $z = M_{hash}(\gamma_{hash}(x)) + \alpha M_{RF}(\gamma_{RF}(x))$, concatenated with $x$, which adds Fourier-feature smoothness to hash-grid detail; and adaptive sampling that keeps sampling inside every contour until a threshold, so small cross-sectional areas are not ignored.

What would settle it

Slice a ground-truth thin branching mesh into 25 parallel planes, run CrossSDF, and check the result in two ways: count the connected components of the extracted zero set against the mesh, and measure the angle between the learned field's gradient at points midway between planes and the slice-plane normal. If thin branches fragment into multiple components or the gradients align with the slicing direction, the symmetric-difference and Eikonal supervision has not produced a genuine 3D signed distance field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CrossSDF learns a neural signed distance function $f(x;\theta)$ whose zero set is the reconstructed surface. The training signal comes from planar signed distance fields $f_{2D}$ computed on each input slice. On-contour samples $\Omega_{on}$ regress $f$ to the 2D distance value, while off-contour samples $\Omega_{off}$ enter the loss only when the sign of $f$ and $f_{2D}$ disagree, so supervision is applied exactly where the predicted interior/exterior differs from the target. This symmetric-difference scheme forces the zero set to match the input contours without forcing $f$ to be a 2D distance field inside the plane, which is what the paper identifies as the cause of laddering. Eikonal and minimum-surface regularization in 3D keep $f$ a valid signed distance field and suppress spurious surfaces, while per-contour adaptive sampling and a hybrid hash-plus-random-Fourier encoding preserve thin features and remove grid creases. On synthetic thin and thick datasets the paper reports lower Chamfer and Hausdorff distances than OReX, Neural-IMLS, POCO, and Screened Poisson, and higher held-out-slice IoU on real CT vessel scans.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Eikonal regularization on uniformly sampled 3D points, together with the network's inductive bias, is enough to define a correct, artifact-free signed distance field in the large unsampled regions between cross-section planes, where there is no direct distance supervision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconstructions from sparse arbitrary-orientation slices can be meshed directly with marching cubes, with no slice-interpolation step and no smoothing post-process.
  • Thin branching topology, such as vessel trees spanning only a few CT slices, is preserved better than with indicator-field or point-cloud methods.
  • Halving the number of slices (for example, from 75 to 50) degrades quality only mildly, and even 25 slices remain usable for some structures, so acquisition could be sparser.
  • Each component contributes a specific property: the symmetric-difference loss removes staircase and laddering artifacts, the adaptive sampler rescues thin contours, and the hybrid encoding removes grid creases while retaining detail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetric-difference principle could generalize to any sparse supervision that provides inside/outside labels, such as sparse LiDAR returns or partial segmentations, without fitting a proxy function in unsampled regions.
  • The hash-plus-Fourier blend could reduce grid-boundary creases in other hash-based neural fields trained from sparse observations, such as multi-view reconstruction with few views.
  • A natural extension would replace the fixed per-contour sample threshold with an analytic criterion based on contour area or local feature size, which could further improve extreme thin structures.
  • If the held-out CT results hold in practice, standard 5 mm-slice scans could be reconstructed into vessel trees usable for pre-surgical planning without dense follow-up imaging.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CrossSDF, a neural signed distance field (SDF) method for reconstructing 3D geometry from planar cross-sections. The input is a set of 2D contours, from which 2D SDFs are derived. The method combines per-contour adaptive sampling, a hybrid hash-grid and random Fourier feature encoding, and a symmetric difference loss that supervises the network only where the predicted and target interior/exterior classifications disagree, together with Eikonal and minimum-surface regularization. The authors evaluate on synthetic thin and thick structures and on real CT scans, comparing against OReX, Neural-IMLS, POCO, and Screened Poisson Reconstruction, reporting Chamfer distance, Hausdorff distance, connected-component count, and volume IoU. The claimed contributions are high-fidelity reconstruction of thin structures, preservation of topological continuity, and avoidance of interpolation artifacts.

Significance. The method is clearly specified and each component is motivated by a specific artifact (laddering, grid interpolation, under-sampled thin contours). The ablations in Table 4 and Figure 8 show that each proposed component contributes to the quantitative and qualitative results. The problem setting, reconstruction from arbitrary planar cross-sections, is practically important, particularly for medical imaging of vessels. If the claims hold, CrossSDF would be a valuable advance over the current state of the art. The introduction of a benchmark for thin-structure cross-section reconstruction is potentially useful, although no code or dataset is released in the manuscript. The main weakness is that the paper's central claim of preserving topological continuity is directly contradicted by the connected-component counts reported in Table 1, and the evaluation lacks statistical rigor (no error bars, self-defined benchmark).

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 4.1] The paper claims in the Abstract and Section 4.1 that CrossSDF preserves topological continuity and reconstructs thin structures 'without breakages.' However, the connected-component (CC) counts in Table 1 show that CrossSDF's extracted meshes are far more fragmented than the ground truth: e.g., Heart aligned 68 vs. 1, Heart non-aligned 176 vs. 1, Alveolis non-aligned 33 vs. 1, and Coronaries non-aligned 35 vs. 3. Since the paper itself introduces CC as a metric that 'confirms correct segmentation and topological consistency,' these numbers directly undercut the central claim. The authors do not discuss this discrepancy or attribute it to marching-cubes threshold sensitivity, spurious tiny components, or mesh post-processing. This issue must be addressed by either analyzing the components (e.g., size filtering, main-component connectivity, or alternative topology metrics) or substantially qualifying the topological-continuity claim.
  2. [Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, A1, A2] All quantitative results are reported as single numbers without error bars, multiple seeds, or any variance analysis. Training is stochastic (random initialization, sampling, and optimization), and the evaluation is performed on a self-defined benchmark. Consequently, the assertion of 'significant improvement over existing methods' is not statistically supported. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three runs, or otherwise justify why the variance is negligible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The column header 'Coro (75)' is ambiguous; it likely denotes a separate coronary structure but is not named in the text. Please clarify the naming.
  2. [Section 3.2] The inset figure illustrating the adaptive sampling issue is not numbered or referenced clearly; it would help to include it as a formal figure or explicitly describe the depicted situation in the text.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (4)] The definition of Ωon as the set where f2D(x) = 0 is technically measure-zero for continuous functions; in practice on-contour samples are used. The text should state that these are the discretized on-contour samples.
  4. [Appendix B.2] The description of withholding '≈ 10% of the slices' is inconsistent with the example: keeping every 61//10 = 6th slice removes about 17% of the data. Please correct the explanation of the split procedure.
  5. [References] The definitions of Chamfer distance and Hausdorff distance are attributed to [30] (UniSurf), which is not the standard source; consider citing a more appropriate reference for these metrics.
  6. [Overall] The paper does not mention whether code and the new benchmark dataset will be released; for reproducibility, please state availability or provide a link.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CrossSDF is a supervised fitting procedure evaluated against external ground truth; self-citations are baselines or regularizers and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

We walked the derivation chain: 2D SDF labels are precomputed from input contours, and the network is trained with the symmetric-difference loss (Eq. 5), where Omega_off is the symmetric difference between predicted and target interior/exterior classifications (Eq. 4). This is a standard supervised objective: the target classification is the input segmentation, not a function of the fitted output, and the loss shrinks to zero exactly when predicted and target contours coincide. The adaptive sampling and hybrid encoding (Eqs. 1-3) are architectural and sampling choices that do not encode the evaluation target. The spatial regularizers (Eqs. 6-7) are priors, not fitted predictions. Quantitative claims are checked against external ground-truth meshes for synthetic data and held-out CT slices for real data (Table 3), so the reported predictions are not the fitted labels by construction. The self-citations to OReX [33] and Deep Medial Fields [32] involve co-authors, but OReX is used as a baseline and sampling starting point, and the medial-field regularizer is one loss term with an ablation showing its effect; neither citation supplies the central reconstruction claim nor forbids alternatives. The paper's own Limitations paragraph concedes failure on very sparse slices, and Table 1's connected-component counts for CrossSDF (e.g., 68/176 vs ground truth 1 for Heart) undercut the topological-continuity claim; these are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity. No equation or step reduces to its input by definition, so no circular step is identified.

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

The model introduces no new physical entities. The core new content is the symmetric difference loss, which is not a fitted parameter. The free parameters listed are standard neural network hyperparameters, chosen by hand and fixed across datasets, and do not reduce the generality of the method. The domain assumptions are about the input: closed contours with known inside/outside labels.

free parameters (7)
  • Eikonal loss weight λeik = 1e-3
    Weight for the Eikonal regularization (Eq. 6). Chosen by hand, fixed across all scenes; affects the balance between data fitting and SDF property.
  • Minimum surface loss weight λmin = 5e-2
    Weight for the minimum surface regularization (Eq. 7). Hand-chosen; suppresses floaters.
  • RFF scaling α = 0.1
    Scaling for the random Fourier features in the hybrid encoding (Eq. 2). Chosen so feature magnitudes are approximately equal at initialization.
  • Contour sampling threshold = 50
    Number of interior samples per contour in adaptive sampling (Appendix B.2). Ensures thin structures are sampled; hand-picked.
  • Softplus and min-surface β = 100
    Used in the minimum surface loss exponential (Eq. 7) and the softplus activation. Hand-chosen.
  • Hash-grid max resolution = 2^10
    Maximum resolution of the hash grid (Table A3). Affects detail capture; fixed across scenes.
  • RFF Gaussian variance σ^2 = 1.0
    Variance for sampling Fourier feature coefficients (Sec 3.3). Hand-chosen.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Input contours are closed and partition each cross-section plane into inside and outside regions.
    Sec 3.1 states the contours are the intersection of planes with the target boundary and divide the plane into inside/outside. This is assumed given by the problem setting; noisy or partial contours would break the 2D SDF labels.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth interior/exterior segmentation is available on each slicing plane.
    Sec 3.2 relies on this to sample inside each contour. The method cannot infer this from unlabeled contours alone.
  • standard math The Eikonal equation is used as a soft regularizer to enforce a signed distance property on the learned field.
    Eq. 6 penalizes ||∇f|| - 1. This is a standard tool for neural SDFs, but it is a soft constraint, not a guarantee.
  • domain assumption The neural network with hash-grid and Fourier features has sufficient capacity to represent thin structures while remaining smooth between slices.
    Sec 3.3 argues that hybrid encoding balances detail and smoothness, but this is an empirical assumption about the model class.
  • standard math Marching cubes at 512^3 resolution faithfully extracts the zero set as a triangle mesh.
    Used for all meshes in evaluation; a standard surface extraction method whose discretization errors are ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CrossSDF: 3D Reconstruction of Thin Structures From Cross-Sections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JQ2L3G2

@misc{pith2026241204120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CrossSDF: 3D Reconstruction of Thin Structures From Cross-Sections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JQ2L3G2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04120}
}
read the original abstract

Reconstructing complex structures from planar cross-sections is a challenging problem, with wide-reaching applications in medical imaging, manufacturing, and topography. Out-of-the-box point cloud reconstruction methods can often fail due to the data sparsity between slicing planes, while current bespoke methods struggle to reconstruct thin geometric structures and preserve topological continuity. This is important for medical applications where thin vessel structures are present in CT and MRI scans. This paper introduces CrossSDF, a novel approach for extracting a 3D signed distance field from 2D signed distances generated from planar contours. Our approach makes the training of neural SDFs contour-aware by using losses designed for the case where geometry is known within 2D slices. Our results demonstrate a significant improvement over existing methods, effectively reconstructing thin structures and producing accurate 3D models without the interpolation artifacts or over-smoothing of prior approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04120 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose CrossSDF, a novel approach for reconstructing a 3D signed-distance field from 2D cross-sections. The input is a set of 2D cross-sections that sample an unobserved ground-truth geometric object by planar intersection (denoted as black lines overlayed on the ground truth Alveolis structure on the left). CrossSDF (middle) accurately reconstructs thin structures without breakages, over￾smoothing, or cross-sec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CrossSDF takes a set of planar cross-sections as input. These cross-sections result in contours which denote the surface boundaries of the target geometry of interest (left, black lines) and each induces a 2D signed distance field (SDF) in its respective plane. From this, we generate a set of planar sample points Ωpl and their 2D SDF labels. During training, points are encoded using our hybrid encoder before being p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Close-up of the “figure eight” object from Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction results on thin structures featuring the Heart (top row) and Pulmonary (bottom row) for various methods. Results are presented using both input-aligned and non-aligned planes, displayed on the ground truth meshes. Thin Structures Alveolis (100) Cerebral …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstruction results on thick structures featuring the Armadillo (top row) and Balloon Dog (bottom row) for various methods. Results are presented using both non-aligned and input-aligned planes, displayed on the ground truth meshes. Thick Structures Armadillo (25) B…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of hepatic vessel reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation of our adaptive sampling approach for Alveolis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of reducing the number of cross-sections on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative ablation of CrossSDF with different compo￾nents removed. The full model results in fewest visual artifacts. introduced in 3.2), we use the sampling from OReX [33]. We present the quantitative results in Tab. 4 and visual￾ize them in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Exploring ct pixel and voxel size effect on anatomic model- ing in mandibular reconstruction

    Maariyah Ahmed, Myra Garzanich, Luigi E Melaragno, Sarah Nyirjesy, Natalia V on Windheim, Matthew Marquardt, Michael Luttrull, Nathan Quails, and Kyle K VanKoevering. Exploring ct pixel and voxel size effect on anatomic model- ing in mandibular reconstruction. 3D Printing in Medicine ,

    work page

  2. [2]

    3d reconstruction of blood vessels

    Ali Al Moussawi, Cedric Galusinski, and Christian Nguyen. 3d reconstruction of blood vessels. Engineering with com- puters, 2015. 1

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Discrete geometric shapes: Matching, interpolation, and approximation

    Helmut Alt and Leonidas J Guibas. Discrete geometric shapes: Matching, interpolation, and approximation. In Handbook of computational geometry - Chapter 3. 2000. 5

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    The medical segmentation decathlon.Nature communications, 2022

    Michela Antonelli, Annika Reinke, Spyridon Bakas, Key- van Farahani, Annette Kopp-Schneider, Bennett A Landman, Geert Litjens, Bjoern Menze, Olaf Ronneberger, Ronald M Summers, et al. The medical segmentation decathlon.Nature communications, 2022. 5, 1

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Sal: Sign agnostic learn- ing of shapes from raw data

    Matan Atzmon and Yaron Lipman. Sal: Sign agnostic learn- ing of shapes from raw data. In CVPR, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Ar- bitrary topology shape reconstruction from planar cross sec- tions

    Chandrajit L Bajaj, Edward J Coyle, and Kwun-Nan Lin. Ar- bitrary topology shape reconstruction from planar cross sec- tions. Graphical models and image processing, 1996. 1, 2

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Piecewise-linear interpo- lation between polygonal slices

    Gill Barequet and Micha Sharir. Piecewise-linear interpo- lation between polygonal slices. In Annual symposium on Computational geometry, 1994. 1, 2

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Reconstruction of multi- label domains from partial planar cross-sections

    Gill Barequet and Amir Vaxman. Reconstruction of multi- label domains from partial planar cross-sections. Computer Graphics Forum, 2009. 2

    work page 2009

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Online reconstruction of 3d objects from arbitrary cross-sections

    Amit Bermano, Amir Vaxman, and Craig Gotsman. Online reconstruction of 3d objects from arbitrary cross-sections. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2011

  2. [10]

    Shape recon- struction from unorganized cross-sections

    Jean-Daniel Boissonnat and Pooran Memari. Shape recon- struction from unorganized cross-sections. In Symposium on geometry processing, 2007. 1, 2

    2007

  3. [11]

    Poco: Point convo- lution for surface reconstruction

    Alexandre Boulch and Renaud Marlet. Poco: Point convo- lution for surface reconstruction. In CVPR, 2022. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2022

  4. [12]

    Use of computed tomography slices 3d-reconstruction as a powerful tool to improve manu- facturing processes on aeroengine components

    C Castellan and D Dastarac. Use of computed tomography slices 3d-reconstruction as a powerful tool to improve manu- facturing processes on aeroengine components. In AIP Con- ference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics, 2000. 1

    2000

  5. [13]

    Learning implicit fields for generative shape modeling

    Zhiqin Chen and Hao Zhang. Learning implicit fields for generative shape modeling. In CVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  6. [14]

    Points2surf learning implicit surfaces from point clouds

    Philipp Erler, Paul Guerrero, Stefan Ohrhallinger, Niloy J Mitra, and Michael Wimmer. Points2surf learning implicit surfaces from point clouds. In ECCV, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [15]

    Nerf: Neural radiance field in 3d vision, a comprehensive review

    Kyle Gao, Yina Gao, Hongjie He, Dening Lu, Linlin Xu, and Jonathan Li. Nerf: Neural radiance field in 3d vision, a comprehensive review. arXiv:2210.00379, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Three-dimensional modeling of human or- gans and its application to diagnosis and surgical planning

    Bernhard Geiger. Three-dimensional modeling of human or- gans and its application to diagnosis and surgical planning. PhD thesis, INRIA, 1993. 1

    1993

  9. [17]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes

    Amos Gropp, Lior Yariv, Niv Haim, Matan Atzmon, and Yaron Lipman. Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes. In ICML, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  10. [18]

    3d-imaging of cardiac structures using 3d heart models for planning in heart surgery: a preliminary study

    Stephan Jacobs, Ronny Grunert, Friedrich W Mohr, and V olkmar Falk. 3d-imaging of cardiac structures using 3d heart models for planning in heart surgery: a preliminary study. Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery ,

  11. [19]

    Screened poisson sur- face reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan and Hugues Hoppe. Screened poisson sur- face reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2013. 2, 5, 6, 7, 1

    2013

  12. [20]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. In Eurographics Symposium on Geometry processing, 2006. 2

    2006

  13. [21]

    Abc: A big cad model dataset for geometric deep learning

    Sebastian Koch, Albert Matveev, Zhongshi Jiang, Francis Williams, Alexey Artemov, Evgeny Burnaev, Marc Alexa, Denis Zorin, and Daniele Panozzo. Abc: A big cad model dataset for geometric deep learning. In CVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  14. [22]

    Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction

    Zhaoshuo Li, Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Russell H Tay- lor, Mathias Unberath, Ming-Yu Liu, and Chen-Hsuan Lin. Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In CVPR, 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023

  15. [23]

    Surface reconstruction from non-parallel curve networks

    Lu Liu, Chandrajit Bajaj, Joseph O Deasy, Daniel A Low, and Tao Ju. Surface reconstruction from non-parallel curve networks. In Computer Graphics Forum, 2008. 1

    2008

  16. [24]

    Neural sparse voxel fields

    Lingjie Liu, Jiatao Gu, Kyaw Zaw Lin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Christian Theobalt. Neural sparse voxel fields. NeurIPS,

  17. [25]

    Neural-pull: Learning signed distance functions from point clouds by learning to pull space onto surfaces

    Baorui Ma, Zhizhong Han, Yu-Shen Liu, and Matthias Zwicker. Neural-pull: Learning signed distance functions from point clouds by learning to pull space onto surfaces. In ICML, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Towards better gradient consistency for neural signed distance functions via level set alignment

    Baorui Ma, Junsheng Zhou, Yu-Shen Liu, and Zhizhong Han. Towards better gradient consistency for neural signed distance functions via level set alignment. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  19. [27]

    Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space

    Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, Michael Niemeyer, Se- bastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space. In CVPR,

  20. [28]

    tiny-cuda-nn, 2021

    Thomas M ¨uller. tiny-cuda-nn, 2021. 1

    2021

  21. [29]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM Transactions on Graphics,

  22. [30]

    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 ICCV, 2021. 6

    2021

  23. [31]

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

    Jeong Joon Park, Philip Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning con- tinuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In CVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  24. [32]

    Deep medial fields

    Daniel Rebain, Ke Li, Vincent Sitzmann, Soroosh Yazdani, Kwang Moo Yi, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Deep medial fields. arXiv:2106.03804, 2021. 5

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Orex: Object reconstruction from planar cross-sections us- ing neural fields

    Haim Sawdayee, Amir Vaxman, and Amit H Bermano. Orex: Object reconstruction from planar cross-sections us- ing neural fields. In CVPR, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  26. [34]

    Topology-Controlled Re- construction from Partial Cross-Sections

    Amani Shhadi and Gill Barequet. Topology-Controlled Re- construction from Partial Cross-Sections. In Vision, Model- ing, and Visualization, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Implicit neural representa- tions with periodic activation functions

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien Martel, Alexander Bergman, David Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. Implicit neural representa- tions with periodic activation functions. NeurIPS, 2020. 2

    2020

  28. [36]

    3d image reconstruc- tion for comparison of algorithm database: A patient specific anatomical and medical image database

    Luc Soler, Alexandre Hostettler, Vincent Agnus, Arnaud Charnoz, J Fasquel, Johan Moreau, A Osswald, Mourad Bouhadjar, and Jacques Marescaux. 3d image reconstruc- tion for comparison of algorithm database: A patient specific anatomical and medical image database. IRCAD Tech. Rep.,

  29. [37]

    Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3D shapes

    Towaki Takikawa, Joey Litalien, Kangxue Yin, Karsten Kreis, Charles Loop, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Alec Jacobson, Morgan McGuire, and Sanja Fidler. Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3D shapes. In CVPR, 2021. 4

    2021

  30. [38]

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, Jonathan Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains. NeurIPS, 2020. 4

    2020

  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. In NeurIPS, 2021. 2

    2021

  32. [40]

    Neural-imls: Self-supervised im- plicit moving least-squares network for surface reconstruc- tion

    Zixiong Wang, Pengfei Wang, Peng-Shuai Wang, Qiujie Dong, Junjie Gao, Shuangmin Chen, Shiqing Xin, Changhe Tu, and Wenping Wang. Neural-imls: Self-supervised im- plicit moving least-squares network for surface reconstruc- tion. Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,

  33. [41]

    The vascular model repository: a public resource of medi- cal imaging data and blood flow simulation results

    Nathan M Wilson, Ana K Ortiz, and Allison B Johnson. The vascular model repository: a public resource of medi- cal imaging data and blood flow simulation results. Journal of medical devices, 2013. 5

    2013

  34. [42]

    Neural fields in visual computing and beyond

    Yiheng Xie, Towaki Takikawa, Shunsuke Saito, Or Litany, Shiqin Yan, Numair Khan, Federico Tombari, James Tomp- kin, Vincent Sitzmann, and Srinath Sridhar. Neural fields in visual computing and beyond. InComputer Graphics Forum,

  35. [43]

    Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance

    Lior Yariv, Yoni Kasten, Dror Moran, Meirav Galun, Matan Atzmon, Basri Ronen, and Yaron Lipman. Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance. In NeurIPS, 2020. 1

    2020

  36. [44]

    Mosaic-sdf for 3d generative models

    Lior Yariv, Omri Puny, Oran Gafni, and Yaron Lipman. Mosaic-sdf for 3d generative models. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  37. [45]

    Iso-points: Optimizing neural implicit surfaces with hybrid representations

    Wang Yifan, Shihao Wu, Cengiz Oztireli, and Olga Sorkine- Hornung. Iso-points: Optimizing neural implicit surfaces with hybrid representations. In CVPR, 2021. 2

    2021

  38. [46]

    No 2D SDF Labels

    Ming Zou, Michelle Holloway, Nathan Carr, and Tao Ju. Topology-constrained surface reconstruction from cross- sections. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2015. 1, 2 CrossSDF: 3D Reconstruction of Thin Structures From Cross-Sections Supplementary Material A. Additional Results A.1....

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.