Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Sensing Surface Patches in Volume Rendering for Inferring Signed Distance Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that neural signed distance fields are inferred more accurately when volume rendering supervises a local surface patch, not just a single ray-surface intersection point, using the field's own gradients to pull sampled…

desk verdict Sensible extension to MonoSDF-style neural reconstruction; the patch pulling is real but the paper doesn't verify that pulled points actually lie on the zero level set. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16467 v1 pith:YVYJZKGQ submitted 2024-12-21 cs.CV

Sijia Jiang , Tong Wu , Jing Hua , Zhizhong Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords signeddistancefunctionsvolumerenderingsurfacereconstructionmulti-view3Dneuralimplicitsurfacespatchphotoconsistencydepthpriors
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 tries to establish that a neural signed distance field learned through volume rendering can be made more accurate if, during training, the network is given an explicit sense of local surface patches rather than only individual ray-surface intersection points. The method samples points around an estimated intersection and projects them onto the zero level set using the predicted signed distance and its gradient, forming a small surface patch. On that patch it then imposes multi-view photo consistency, depth consistency, and surface fitting losses alongside the usual volume-rendering losses. On ScanNet, Replica, and Tanks and Temples, the resulting surface reconstructions have higher F-scores and lower Chamfer distances than current single-point SDF methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the projection step $q' = q - d \cdot \nabla f / \|\nabla f\|$, which moves a sampled point $q$ onto the zero level set of the learned field. By applying this to a Gaussian cloud of points around each anchor (a ray-surface intersection or a back-projected depth point), the method forms a surface patch $s = \{p'_j\}$. The patch then carries three explicit constraints: depth consistency against projected depth maps, normalized cross-correlation photometric consistency across neighboring views, and a surface-fitting loss that encourages the patch to lie on the plane defined by the depth and normal priors. Because the projection uses the field's own gradient, the whole sensing operation is differentiable and trains the SDF through second-order derivatives.

What would settle it

Measure the signed-distance residual at pulled points during the first training epochs on a synthetic scene with known ground truth: if the method's added value is real, |f(p'_j)| should shrink steadily as training proceeds; if the projection assumption is broken, the residual will stay large and the patch constraints will push geometry toward a wrong surface. Equivalently, remove all depth and normal priors and train only on RGB with the photometric patch loss: if the patch sense is doing the work, reconstruction quality should still exceed a single-point baseline; if it collapses to baseline level, the assumed surface sense depends on priors rather than on the pulling mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that one-step gradient projection in a signed distance field turns any nearby query point into an approximate on-surface point, so a collection of pulled queries forms a surface patch that can be supervised directly. The paper claims that this patch, rather than a single intersection point, is the right unit for surface constraints in volume rendering: depth, normal, and photometric consistency can be imposed explicitly and densely on the patch. In the paper's own telling, this yields zero level sets that track the true scene surface more tightly, recovering details that volume-rendering-only supervision misses.

Load-bearing premise

The projection in Eq. (4) only places points on the true surface if the network's field already has unit-norm gradients pointing straight at the zero level set, which is not guaranteed early in training or in empty space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On indoor scene benchmarks, reconstructed surfaces move closer to the true surface, as measured by higher F-score, precision, and recall and lower Chamfer distance than single-point SDF methods.
  • The method reveals finer geometric details and more compact surfaces, reducing the inflated floating geometry that appears in empty space with volume-rendering baselines.
  • The three patch constraints each contribute different improvements: depth consistency smooths the surface, photometric consistency makes it more compact, and surface fitting adds smoothness and detail.
  • The approach inherits the volume-rendering framework and can use either monocular or sensor depth and normal priors, producing better reconstructions in both settings.
  • The extra cost is modest: sampling nine points per anchor is enough, and larger patches do not bring further gains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the patch-level photometric consistency effectively imports classical multi-view stereo's photoconsistency into neural volume rendering, so the method could be extended to reduce reliance on depth and normal priors by learning self-supervised patch matching.
  • We infer that the one-step projection resembles a single Newton step on the level-set function, so iterating the pull or weighting multi-step projections could make training more robust in the early epochs when the field is far from a valid SDF.
  • We infer that the surface-patch representation could serve as a geometric supervision signal for other explicit 3D representations, such as aligning 3D Gaussian splatting or mesh vertices to the zero level set during optimization.
  • We infer that the same sensing mechanism might transfer to unsigned distance fields or occupancy fields by replacing the signed projection with a sign-free gradient step, though the paper does not explore this direction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a method for recovering signed distance functions (SDFs) from multi-view RGB(-D) images by augmenting volume rendering with explicit constraints on sensed surface patches. At each ray, the method samples points from a Gaussian centered at an anchor (a ray-surface intersection or a back-projected depth point), then 'pulls' them onto the zero level set using the current network's signed distance and gradient (Eq. 4), forming a local patch. On this patch it applies depth consistency (Eq. 10), photometric consistency via NCC (Eqs. 11-12), and a plane-fitting loss (Eq. 13), in addition to standard volume-rendering losses (RGB, depth, normal, Eikonal). Experiments on ScanNet, Replica, and Tanks and Temples report consistent improvements in F-score and Chamfer distance over MonoSDF and NeuralRGBD baselines, with ablations on loss components, patch size, point count, and the pulling step.

Significance. If the pulled points genuinely lie on the zero level set, the method provides a simple and effective mechanism to impose surface-level constraints during volume rendering, addressing a known weakness of point-wise supervision. The empirical gains over strong baselines are consistent, and the paper includes a thorough ablation of the proposed components and publicly available code. The main contribution—constructing a local patch via gradient-based projection and applying multi-view/depth/normal constraints on that patch—is a sensible and potentially useful idea. However, the significance hinges on the correctness and validation of the pulling operation, which is currently not verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Surface Sense, Eq. (4)] The projection in Eq. (4), q' = q - d * ∇f/||∇f||, lands on the zero level set only when the field has unit gradient norm in the neighborhood (i.e., it is already a valid SDF). The Eikonal loss (Eq. 9) is applied only at ray samples q, not at the pulled points p'_j or along the segment from q to p', so nothing in the objective guarantees that f(p'_j) ≈ 0 or ||∇f(p'_j)|| ≈ 1. The manuscript provides no diagnostic (e.g., histograms of f(p') or gradient norms at p') to show that the sensed patch is actually on the zero level set. Without such verification, the depth, photometric, and fitting losses are applied at potentially off-surface points, and the interpretation of the gains as due to 'surface constraints' is not established.
  2. [Ablation Studies, 'The effect of pulling' (Table 6)] The 'No pulling' ablation in Table 6 applies the three surface losses directly to the anchor q rather than to the pulled points p'_j. This changes both the location of the constrained points (possibly off-surface vs. pulled) and the number/spread of points (a single anchor vs. J sampled points). The ablation therefore does not isolate the effect of the projection onto the zero level set; the observed improvement could stem solely from the increased sampling density or from the variance reduction of the patch. A control that projects points but with a step that is known to keep them away from the zero set, or one that reports f(p') statistics on both settings, would be needed to attribute the gain to accurate pulling.
  3. [Experimental Results, Tables 1 and 2] The paper reports a single run per setting with no error bars or multi-seed experiments. In Table 1, the Accuracy metric for ScanNet is slightly worse than MonoSDF (0.036 vs. 0.035), yet the abstract and conclusion claim superiority without qualification. Given the observed gains are on the order of a few percent for F-score and CD, and Accuracy actually regresses, the claimed 'superiority' is not statistically substantiated. At minimum, the authors should report variance across seed runs and discuss the Accuracy regression.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The text 'Cov and V arare' contains a typo; it should read 'Cov and Var are'.
  2. [Section 'Guassian Distribution for Sampling'] The word 'Guassian' should be 'Gaussian' in the paragraph heading and in the text.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'mult-view' appears in a few places; should be 'multi-view'.
  4. [Eq. (14)] The loss notation is inconsistent: λ_5 is defined but not listed in the text description of the loss weights; the sentence in 'Details' omits λ_5. Please clarify the exact weight for L_NCC.
  5. [Fig. 2] The caption of Fig. 2 refers to panels (a)-(d) but the main text describes (a), (b), (c), and (d) in an order that is slightly confusing; aligning the text with the figure panel labels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the surface-patch constraints are evaluated against independent GT depth, normals, and images, and the final geometry is measured against GT meshes.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained with respect to its empirical claims. The sensed patch is formed by Eq. (4), q' = q - d * grad(f)/||grad(f)||, using the current network field, but the constraints imposed on that patch (LDC in Eq. 10, LNCC in Eqs. 11-12, LFit in Eq. 13) are all computed against independent inputs: GT depth maps, GT normal priors, and GT RGB images. The final comparison is made against GT meshes via accuracy, completeness, Chamfer distance, and F-score, so the reported improvement does not reduce to the network's own pulled points. The pulling operation is a standard signed-distance identity and is supported by both the authors' earlier work and independent references (e.g., Chou, Chugunov, and Heide 2022), so it is not an unverified self-citation carrying the argument. The per-mini-batch scale/shift alignment of monocular depth with rendered depth is a standard calibration of the input cue and, while it weakens the independence of that particular depth supervision, it is not the central claim and is not presented as a prediction. The ablation 'No pulling' compares the same loss terms applied at anchor points versus pulled points, which is a legitimate optimization comparison rather than a tautology. A residual correctness concern exists: Eq. (4) lands exactly on the zero level set only when the field is already a unit-norm SDF, and the Eikonal loss is not explicitly evaluated at the pulled points p'_j; however, this is an optimization/validation risk, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on hyperparameters such as tau squared, J, and the loss weights, and on the assumption that the network's current SDF is close enough to a true SDF for the pulling projection to place points on the true surface. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the surface patch is a construct of sampled points, not a new quantity in the physical model.

free parameters (4)
  • tau_sq (patch variance) = tau squared set as the distance between neighboring pixels in 3D
    Controls the Gaussian sampling spread around anchors and hence patch size; ablation test covers 0.5, 1, 2, 3 times the baseline.
  • J (points per patch) = 9
    Number of sampled points pulled onto the zero level set; ablation compares 1, 9, 16, 25.
  • lambda_1 through lambda_6 (loss weights) = 0.1, 0.05, 0.05, 0.5, annealed 0 to 0.1, 0.5
    Chosen by hand to balance contributions; the 10x and 0.1x tests in the ablation show sensitivity.
  • depth scale w and shift q = solved per mini-batch via least squares
    Aligns Omnidata monocular depth with rendered depth for the depth losses; a per-batch fitting step.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The gradient of the predicted field points toward the zero level set and has unit norm (Eikonal), making Eq. 4 a valid projection onto the surface.
    Invoked in the Surface Sense section and Eq. (4); the Eikonal loss in Eq. (9) is designed to enforce it, but it is only approximately satisfied during training.
  • domain assumption The monocular depth and normal priors are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for the surface constraints.
    Same assumption as MonoSDF; used in LDC, LFIt, and the volume-rendering depth and normal losses.
  • domain assumption Multi-view photometric consistency (NCC) is a valid cue on the sensed patch.
    LNCC in Eq. (11) assumes that the gray textures of the patch agree across the reference and neighboring views, requiring a reasonably Lambertian scene.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensing Surface Patches in Volume Rendering for Inferring Signed Distance Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVYJZKGQ

@misc{pith2026241216467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensing Surface Patches in Volume Rendering for Inferring Signed Distance Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVYJZKGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16467}
}
read the original abstract

It is vital to recover 3D geometry from multi-view RGB images in many 3D computer vision tasks. The latest methods infer the geometry represented as a signed distance field by minimizing the rendering error on the field through volume rendering. However, it is still challenging to explicitly impose constraints on surfaces for inferring more geometry details due to the limited ability of sensing surfaces in volume rendering. To resolve this problem, we introduce a method to infer signed distance functions (SDFs) with a better sense of surfaces through volume rendering. Using the gradients and signed distances, we establish a small surface patch centered at the estimated intersection along a ray by pulling points randomly sampled nearby. Hence, we are able to explicitly impose surface constraints on the sensed surface patch, such as multi-view photo consistency and supervision from depth or normal priors, through volume rendering. We evaluate our method by numerical and visual comparisons on scene benchmarks. Our superiority over the latest methods justifies our effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our method. We infer SDF fθ from multi-view images including RGB images, depth and normal maps that were either captured by sensors or estimated by monocular networks. Using the predicted signed distances and gradients ∇fθ, we are enabled to sense a surface patch s by pulling randomly sampled queries q onto the zero level set as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Patch Difference. Current methods mainly impose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Error map comparison on ScanNet (bigger error: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Visual comparison on ScanNet released by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Compactness comparison with MonoSDF (GT mesh:Gray). report accuracy, completeness, Chamfer Distance (CD), the F-score with a threshold of 5cm, Precision and Recall, as well as normal consistency (NC). Details. For each posed view, we sample 1024 rays per train￾ing batc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison with MonoSDF on Tanks and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparisons on sizes of patch surfaces. available, we only compare visual results with MonoSDF. The visual comparison in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of losses. We use MonoSDF as a baseline and apply one loss each time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  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 word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    B.; Nie ner, M.; and Thies, J

    Azinovi\'c, D.; Martin-Brualla, R.; Goldman, D. B.; Nie ner, M.; and Thies, J. 2022. Neural RGB-D Surface Reconstruction. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6290--6301

    2022

  4. [4]

    H.; and Gould, S

    Ben - Shabat, Y.; Koneputugodage, C. H.; and Gould, S. 2021. DiGS : Divergence guided shape implicit neural representation for unoriented point clouds. CoRR, abs/2106.10811

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Chen, C.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2022. Latent Partition Implicit with Surface Codes for 3D Representation. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2022

  6. [6]

    Chen, C.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2023 a . GridPull: Towards Scalability in Learning Implicit Representations from 3D Point Clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Chen, C.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2023 b . Unsupervised Inference of Signed Distance Functions from Single Sparse Point Clouds without Learning Priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vsion and Pattern Recognition

    2023

  8. [8]

    Chen, C.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2024. Inferring Neural Signed Distance Functions by Overfitting on Single Noisy Point Clouds through Finetuning Data-Driven based Priors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, H.; Li, C.; and Lee, G. H. 2023. NeuSG: Neural Implicit Surface Reconstruction with 3D Gaussian Splatting Guidance. arXiv:2312.00846

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chou, G.; Chugunov, I.; and Heide, F. 2022. GenSDF: Two-Stage Learning of Generalizable Signed Distance Functions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2022

  3. [11]

    X.; Savva, M.; Halber, M.; Funkhouser, T

    Dai, A.; Chang, A. X.; Savva, M.; Halber, M.; Funkhouser, T. A.; and Nie ner, M. 2017. ScanNet: Richly-annotated 3D Reconstructions of Indoor Scenes. CoRR, abs/1702.04405

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Eftekhar, A.; Sax, A.; Malik, J.; and Zamir, A. 2021. Omnidata: A Scalable Pipeline for Making Multi-Task Mid-Level Vision Datasets From 3D Scans. In International Conference on Computer Vision, 10786--10796

    2021

  5. [13]

    Fu, Q.; Xu, Q.; Ong, Y.-S.; and Tao, W. 2022. Geo-Neus : Geometry-Consistent Neural Implicit Surfaces Learning for Multi-view Reconstruction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2022

  6. [14]

    Guo, H.; Peng, S.; Lin, H.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, G.; Bao, H.; and Zhou, X. 2022. Neural 3D Scene Reconstruction with the Manhattan-world Assumption. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2022

  7. [15]

    Guédon, A.; and Lepetit, V. 2023. SuGaR: Surface-Aligned Gaussian Splatting for Efficient 3D Mesh Reconstruction and High-Quality Mesh Rendering. arXiv:2311.12775

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Han, Z.; Chen, C.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Zwicker, M. 2020. DRWR : A Differentiable Renderer without Rendering for Unsupervised 3 D Structure Learning from Silhouette Images. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2020

  9. [17]

    Hu, P.; and Han, Z. 2023. Learning Neural Implicit through Volume Rendering with Attentive Depth Fusion Priors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Huang, B.; Yu, Z.; Chen, A.; Geiger, A.; and Gao, S. 2024. 2D Gaussian Splatting for Geometrically Accurate Radiance Fields. In Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Conference Papers ’24, SIGGRAPH ’24. ACM

    2024

  11. [19]

    Jiang, S.; Hua, J.; and Han, Z. 2023. Coordinate Quantized Neural Implicit Representations for Multi-view 3D Reconstruction. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision

    2023

  12. [20]

    Jiang, Y.; Ji, D.; Han, Z.; and Zwicker, M. 2019. SDFDiff : Differentiable Rendering of Signed Distance Fields for 3D Shape Optimization. ArXiv, abs/1912.07109

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Knapitsch, A.; Park, J.; Zhou, Q.-Y.; and Koltun, V. 2017. Tanks and Temples: Benchmarking Large-Scale Scene Reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Laurentini, A. 1994. The visual hull concept for silhouette-based image understanding. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 16(2): 150--162

    1994

  15. [23]

    H.; Unberath, M.; Liu, M.-Y.; and Lin, C.-H

    Li, Z.; M\"uller, T.; Evans, A.; Taylor, R. H.; Unberath, M.; Liu, M.-Y.; and Lin, C.-H. 2023. Neuralangelo: High-Fidelity Neural Surface Reconstruction. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ( CVPR )

    2023

  16. [24]

    Liu, S.-L.; Guo, H.-X.; Pan, H.; Wang, P.; Tong, X.; and Liu, Y. 2021. Deep Implicit Moving Least-Squares Functions for 3D Reconstruction. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2021

  17. [25]

    E.; and Cline, H

    Lorensen, W. E.; and Cline, H. E. 1987. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. Computer Graphics, 21(4): 163--169

    1987

  18. [26]

    Ma, B.; Han, Z.; Liu, Y.; and Huang, Q. 2023 a . Learning Signed Distance Functions from Noisy 3D Point Clouds via Noise to Noise Mapping. International Conference on Machine Learning

    2023

  19. [27]

    Ma, B.; Han, Z.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Zwicker, M. 2021. Neural-Pull: Learning Signed Distance Functions from Point Clouds by Learning to Pull Space onto Surfaces. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2021

  20. [28]

    Ma, B.; Liu, Y.-S.; Zwicker, M.; and Han, Z. 2022 a . Reconstructing Surfaces for Sparse Point Clouds with On-Surface Priors. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2022

  21. [29]

    Ma, B.; Liu, Y.-S.; Zwicker, M.; and Han, Z. 2022 b . Surface Reconstruction from Point Clouds by Learning Predictive Context Priors. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ma, B.; Zhou, J.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2023 b . Towards Better Gradient Consistency for Neural Signed Distance Functions via Level Set Alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vsion and Pattern Recognition

    2023

  23. [31]

    Mescheder, L.; Oechsle, M.; Niemeyer, M.; Nowozin, S.; and Geiger, A. 2019. Occupancy Networks: Learning 3 D Reconstruction in Function Space. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2019

  24. [32]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2020. NeRF : Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2020

  25. [33]

    M\"uller, T.; Evans, A.; Schied, C.; and Keller, A. 2022. Instant Neural Graphics Primitives with a Multiresolution Hash Encoding. arXiv:2201.05989

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Niemeyer, M.; Mescheder, L.; Oechsle, M.; and Geiger, A. 2020. Differentiable Volumetric Rendering: Learning Implicit 3D Representations without 3D Supervision. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2020

  27. [35]

    Noda, T.; Chen, C.; Zhang, W.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2024. MultiPull: Detailing Signed Distance Functions by Pulling Multi-Level Queries at Multi-Step. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

  28. [36]

    Oechsle, M.; Peng, S.; and Geiger, A. 2021. UNISURF : Unifying Neural Implicit Surfaces and Radiance Fields for Multi-View Reconstruction. In International Conference on Computer Vision

    2021

  29. [37]

    L.; and Frahm, J.-M

    Sch\" o nberger, J. L.; and Frahm, J.-M. 2016. Structure-from-Motion Revisited. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2016

  30. [38]

    L.; Zheng, E.; Pollefeys, M.; and Frahm, J.-M

    Sch\" o nberger, J. L.; Zheng, E.; Pollefeys, M.; and Frahm, J.-M. 2016. Pixelwise View Selection for Unstructured Multi-View Stereo. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2016

  31. [39]

    Straub, J.; Whelan, T.; Ma, L.; Chen, Y.; Wijmans, E.; Green, S.; Engel, J. J.; Mur - Artal, R.; Ren, C.; Verma, S.; Clarkson, A.; Yan, M.; Budge, B.; Yan, Y.; Pan, X.; Yon, J.; Zou, Y.; Leon, K.; Carter, N.; Briales, J.; Gillingham, T.; Mueggler, E.; Pesqueira, L.; Savva, M.;...

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Takikawa, T.; Litalien, J.; Yin, K.; Kreis, K.; Loop, C.; Nowrouzezahrai, D.; Jacobson, A.; McGuire, M.; and Fidler, S. 2021. Neural Geometric Level of Detail: Real-time Rendering with Implicit 3D Shapes. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2021

  33. [41]

    Tang, J.; Lei, J.; Xu, D.; Ma, F.; Jia, K.; and Zhang, L. 2021. SA-ConvONet : Sign-Agnostic Optimization of Convolutional Occupancy Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    2021

  34. [42]

    Teed, Z.; and Deng, J. 2021. DROID-SLAM: Deep Visual SLAM for Monocular, Stereo, and RGB-D Cameras . Advances in neural information processing systems

    2021

  35. [43]

    Vicini, D.; Speierer, S.; and Jakob, W. 2022. Differentiable Signed Distance Function Rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 41(4): 125:1--125:18

    2022

  36. [44]

    Wang, J.; Wang, P.; Long, X.; Theobalt, C.; Komura, T.; Liu, L.; and Wang, W. 2022. NeuRIS : Neural Reconstruction of Indoor Scenes Using Normal Priors. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2022

  37. [45]

    Wang, P.; Liu, L.; Liu, Y.; Theobalt, C.; Komura, T.; and Wang, W. 2021. NeuS : Learning Neural Implicit Surfaces by Volume Rendering for Multi-view Reconstruction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27171--27183

    2021

  38. [46]

    Wang, Y.; Skorokhodov, I.; and Wonka, P. 2022. HF-NeuS : Improved Surface Reconstruction Using High-Frequency Details

    2022

  39. [47]

    Xiang, P.; Wen, X.; Liu, Y.-S.; Cao, Y.-P.; Wan, P.; Zheng, W.; and Han, Z. 2021. SnowflakeNet : Point Cloud Completion by Snowflake Point Deconvolution with Skip-Transformer. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision

    2021

  40. [48]

    Yao, Y.; Luo, Z.; Li, S.; Fang, T.; and Quan, L. 2018. MVSNet: Depth Inference for Unstructured Multi-view Stereo. European Conference on Computer Vision

    2018

  41. [49]

    Yariv, L.; Gu, J.; Kasten, Y.; and Lipman, Y. 2021. Volume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. In Thirty-Fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2021

  42. [50]

    Yariv, L.; Kasten, Y.; Moran, D.; Galun, M.; Atzmon, M.; Ronen, B.; and Lipman, Y. 2020. Multiview Neural Surface Reconstruction by Disentangling Geometry and Appearance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33

    2020

  43. [51]

    Yu, Z.; Peng, S.; Niemeyer, M.; Sattler, T.; and Geiger, A. 2022. MonoSDF : Exploring Monocular Geometric Cues for Neural Implicit Surface Reconstruction

    2022

  44. [52]

    Yu, Z.; Sattler, T.; and Geiger, A. 2024. Gaussian Opacity Fields: Efficient and Compact Surface Reconstruction in Unbounded Scenes. arXiv:2404.10772

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2024. Neural Signed Distance Function Inference through Splatting 3D Gaussians Pulled on Zero-Level Set. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

  46. [54]

    Zhang, W.; Shi, K.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2024. Learning Unsigned Distance Functions from Multi-view Images with Volume Rendering Priors. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2024

  47. [55]

    Zhou, J.; Ma, B.; Li, S.; Liu, Y.-S.; and Han, Z. 2023. Learning a More Continuous Zero Level Set in Unsigned Distance Fields through Level Set Projection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    2023

  48. [56]

    Zhou, J.; Ma, B.; Liu, Y.-S.; Fang, Y.; and Han, Z. 2022. Learning Consistency-Aware Unsigned Distance Functions Progressively from Raw Point Clouds. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2022

  49. [57]

    R.; Geiger, A.; and Pollefeys, M

    Zhu, Z.; Peng, S.; Larsson, V.; Cui, Z.; Oswald, M. R.; Geiger, A.; and Pollefeys, M. 2023. NICER-SLAM: Neural Implicit Scene Encoding for RGB SLAM . CoRR, abs/2302.03594

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R.; and Pollefeys, M

    Zhu, Z.; Peng, S.; Larsson, V.; Xu, W.; Bao, H.; Cui, Z.; Oswald, M. R.; and Pollefeys, M. 2022. NICE-SLAM: Neural Implicit Scalable Encoding for SLAM. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2022

Pith tools

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