Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Light Transport-aware Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Single-View Reconstruction of 3D Volumes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A diffusion prior guided by light-transport gradients reconstructs volumetric clouds from a single view at a quality earlier methods did not reach.

desk verdict The idea is good and the monoplanar representation is neat, but the main evaluation likely lets the diffusion prior see the test clouds, so the headline quality claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05226 v3 pith:6M3PADBE submitted 2025-01-09 cs.CV cs.LG

Ludwic Leonard , Nils Thuerey , Ruediger Westermann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords single-viewreconstructionvolumetriccloudsdiffusionposteriorsamplinglatentmodeldifferentiablevolumerenderingmonoplanarrepresentationmultiplelightscatteringinverse
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

This paper tries to establish that volumetric cloud reconstruction from a single photograph becomes tractable when a learned prior over 3D density is combined with gradients from a physically-based volume renderer. The authors introduce a monoplanar latent representation that compresses simulated cloud volumes, train an unconditional diffusion model on that latent space, and then run diffusion posterior sampling in which the renderer's gradients push the latent code toward agreement with the observed image while the prior keeps the volume cloud-like. They report that this scheme improves perceptual fidelity over prior-free differentiable rendering baselines using one or three views, runs in minutes rather than roughly half an hour, and can recover unknown background and environment lighting along with the density field.

What carries the argument

The central object is a parametric diffusion posterior sampling loop (PDPS, Algorithm 2) running in the latent space of an unconditional diffusion model, with a monoplanar representation as the compression layer. Monoplanar means a single 2D feature grid on the xy-plane whose feature vectors are sampled along z and decoded by a shared MLP; it compresses each cloud volume from roughly 100 MB to a 2 MB latent code. The load-bearing mechanism is that gradients of the image loss are computed through a physically-based differentiable volume renderer, so the update direction $\nabla_{\theta_t}\|y - R(D(\hat\theta_0), \phi)\|_2^2$ carries real light-transport information, while the diffusion prior keeps the density distribution cloud-like. The outer loop (Algorithm 1) alternates SGD on physical parameters $\phi$ with posterior samples $\theta$, starts denoising from a partially noisy latent, and scales the guidance weight $\zeta$ from 0.1 to 1.

What would settle it

Check the released dataset and training scripts for overlap between the 16 test clouds and the training set; if any overlap exists, retrain the diffuser on only the non-test clouds and re-run the Table 2 comparison to see whether the N-LPIPS advantage over DRT and SPS survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that an unconditional diffusion prior over compressed cloud densities, coupled to a differentiable path-tracing volume renderer, turns single-view reconstruction of highly scattering volumes from a severely underdetermined optimization into a workable posterior sampling problem. The authors compress each roughly 100 MB density field into a roughly 2 MB monoplanar latent code, train a latent diffusion model on 1,000 simulated cumulus clouds augmented to 112,000 instances, and then alternate SGD on physical scene parameters with diffusion posterior samples in the latent space. In their Table 2 comparison, the single-view and three-view variants outperform the gradient-only baselines DRT and SPS on the perceptual metric N-LPIPS for novel views, produce cloud-like interiors, and the same loop recovers unknown background or environment lighting in Section 5.6.

Load-bearing premise

The reported quality gains assume the 16 test clouds were never among the 1,000 clouds or their 111,000 augmented copies used to train the diffusion model, and the paper does not describe such a holdout split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single cloud photograph can yield a full 3D density field suitable for novel-view rendering and relighting, not just a 2D appearance match.
  • The same posterior-sampling machinery transfers to other observation models, such as transmittance images, coarse-grid super-resolution, and inpainting, because the forward model is swapped without retraining the diffuser.
  • Unknown scene parameters such as background radiance and environment lighting are recoverable alongside the density field, reducing the need to calibrate lighting before reconstruction.
  • Three-view input with three diffusion restarts (DPS3x3) gives the best reported quality, so the method scales gracefully as views are added.
  • Reconstructions take minutes instead of the roughly half-hour runs of the DRT and SPS baselines, making iterative volume reconstruction more practical.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not describe a train/test split between the 1,000 simulated clouds and the 16 'unseen' test clouds, so the headline comparison should be re-run after confirming that the tested clouds are outside the diffusion model's training set.
  • Because the prior is trained only on simulated cumulus clouds, its ability to generalize to smoke, fire, or non-cumulus morphology is an open question; a natural stress test is reconstruction from an independently simulated or analytic volume.
  • The $\zeta$ schedule, with weak prior guidance early and stronger guidance later, is a tunable knob; adapting it to observation noise or view count could extend the method to noisier or more ambiguous inputs without changing the algorithm.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for reconstructing 3D volumetric density fields (specifically cumulus clouds) from one or a few images by combining an unconditional latent diffusion model with a physically-based differentiable volume renderer. The authors introduce a new dataset (Cloudy) of 1,000 synthetic cloud volumes, a novel 'monoplanar' implicit representation that compresses each volume into a 128x128x32 latent grid, and a parametric diffusion posterior sampling (PDPS) scheme (Algorithms 1 and 2) that alternates DPS-style guidance with optimization of unknown physical parameters such as background radiance. The method is evaluated on single-view and three-view reconstruction against DRT and SPS (Table 2), on super-resolution, inpainting, transmittance-based reconstruction, and joint lighting recovery. The central quantitative claim is that PDPS yields novel-view LPIPS substantially better than the prior-free baselines, supporting the abstract's assertion of 'previously unattainable quality.'

Significance. If the experimental results are valid, this is a strong contribution: it demonstrates a practical way to inject a learned shape prior into a physically-accurate differentiable renderer, a known hard problem due to the ill-posedness of inverse volume rendering. The dataset release, the compact monoplanar representation, and the public code are valuable assets for the community. The paper is also transparent about important limitations, such as the ambiguity between the latent volume θ and the physical parameters ϕ, and the high computational cost. However, the significance hinges on the evaluation being conducted on clouds that are truly unseen by the diffusion prior; currently that is not established, and the headline claim of 'previously unattainable quality' is therefore not supported as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3 vs. Table 2] The diffusion model is trained on latent codes derived from all 1,000 Cloudy volumes (Section 4.3), while Table 2's caption states that the 32 test cases are constructed from 16 'unseen clouds' from the same dataset. The paper never states that these 16 clouds are excluded from the 1,000 used to generate the training latent codes, and no split protocol (e.g., cloud identifiers or an explicit 'held-out' statement) is provided anywhere in the main text or supplement. If the test clouds are a subset of the training set, the prior can encode the exact ground-truth volumes, and the reported N-LPIPS improvements over DRT and SPS would reflect memorization rather than reconstruction ability. This is load-bearing for every quantitative claim in Section 5.5 and for the abstract. Please specify the exact split, provide the cloud IDs or a reproducible protocol, and re-evaluate on clouds that are provably held out from the diffusion training set; alternatively, report the overlap statistics to demonstrate disjointness.
  2. [Section 5.5 and Abstract] The abstract claims single-view reconstruction at 'previously unattainable quality,' but the only quantitative comparison in Table 2 is against DRT and SPS, which are prior-free differentiable optimization baselines. There is no comparison with recent learning-based single-view reconstruction methods (e.g., pixelNeRF, Zero-1-to-3, or latent-diffusion NeRF pipelines), and no ablation that isolates the contribution of the diffusion prior from the differentiable renderer. As a result, the strength of the headline claim is not fully supported by the evidence presented. A comparison with at least one learning-based baseline, or a careful rephrasing of the claim to 'previously unattainable with optimization-only differentiable rendering,' would make the contribution statement proportionate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The sentence 'Karras et al. [49] and Po et al. [49] provide thorough overviews' appears to cite the same reference twice; [49] is Po et al., and the Karras et al. entry is missing from the reference list.
  2. [Table 2] The metrics T-LPIPS and N-LPIPS are not defined in the main text or the table caption; please define them (e.g., test-view LPIPS and novel-view LPIPS) and state the exact computation procedure.
  3. [Section 4.3] The augmentation operations are described only as '14 such operations' and '8 equivariant transformations (flips and transposes)'; please enumerate the exact operations for reproducibility.
  4. [Section 5.4] The transmittance-based reconstruction is presented with qualitative figures only; adding a quantitative metric (e.g., PSNR or LPIPS on the reconstructed volume or rendered views) would strengthen the claim.
  5. [Section 5.6] The lighting recovery experiment states that the optimization 'closely matches' the ground-truth lighting, but no quantitative error is reported for the recovered background or environment map; please add a numerical measure.
  6. [References] Several reference entries contain incorrect author attributions (e.g., 'Yong Jae Wang' appears in papers that should be attributed to different authors); please proofread the reference list against the original sources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction derivation is self-contained; the train/test overlap concern is an evaluation-hygiene issue, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The diffusion prior is trained on latent codes of the Cloudy dataset (Section 4.3), and reconstruction is formulated as posterior sampling with a differentiable renderer (Eq. 2, Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2). The DPS guidance step is cited to the external work of Chung et al. [9], and the differentiable volume rendering follows the published SPS/DRT literature [27, 45, 46]. The monoplanar representation is introduced and directly compared against triplanar and dense-grid baselines (Table 1). The only potentially load-bearing concern is the evaluation split: Section 4.3 trains on 'all 1,000 clouds from the Cloudy dataset' augmented to 1,000x14x8 instances, while Table 2 reports averages 'sampled from 16 unseen clouds' from the same dataset, with no explicit holdout protocol. If the test clouds were actually in the training set, the reported LPIPS improvements over DRT and SPS would reflect memorization rather than reconstruction. However, that would be an empirical evaluation flaw, not a circular derivation: the paper's equations and algorithms do not define the test clouds in terms of the training data, and the word 'unseen' asserts disjointness rather than entailing it. No self-citation chain forces the central result, and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, under the specified circularity definitions, the correct finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The monoplanar representation is an algorithmic construct rather than a physical entity, so the invented_entities list is empty. The central claim, however, rests on several domain assumptions, most critically the disjointness of the test clouds from the diffusion training set, which the paper's own text does not establish.

free parameters (4)
  • DPS guidance scale zeta = 0.1 to 1.0 (scheduled)
    Hyperparameter balancing prior enforcement and observation fidelity; chosen by hand; Figure 13 shows reconstruction quality varies strongly with this value.
  • Number of diffusion steps and stride = 100 steps with stride 10
    Selected in practice (Supplementary Algorithm 2) rather than derived; affects runtime and reconstruction behavior.
  • Latent refinement schedule S_refine = not specified precisely ("a few steps around the middle")
    Hand-chosen optimization schedule in Algorithm 1; affects stability and final reconstruction quality.
  • Monoplanar latent grid dimensions = 128x128x32 features, upsampled to 256x256x64
    Manual architecture choice for the latent representation; not derived from any theory or benchmark.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The DPS approximation p(y|xt) is well approximated by p(y|x0_hat(xt)) with a Gaussian likelihood when the decoder and renderer are nonlinear.
    Inherited from Chung et al. (Eq. 1, Section 3.2); the approximation quality is not analyzed for the specific latent decoder D(theta) and volume renderer used here.
  • domain assumption The monoplanar latent representation is equivariant to flips, transposes, rotations, and xy-scaling, so transformations applied directly to latent codes yield valid volumes.
    Section 4.3 and Supplementary Section 6 use this to generate 14x8 augmented training instances; if the equivariance is only approximate, the augmented latents may be unrealistic.
  • domain assumption A decoder trained on only 64 clouds produces accurate latent codes for all 1,000 clouds in the dataset.
    Section 4.2 states that 64 cloud samples are sufficient to obtain an accurate latent encoding; no evidence is given that the remaining 936 clouds are encoded without significant distortion.
  • domain assumption Synthetic clouds generated with the JangaFX EmberGen simulator are representative of the cloud distribution relevant to the intended application.
    Section 4.1 describes the dataset creation; all training and test data are synthetic, and no real cloud imagery is used anywhere in the evaluation.
  • domain assumption The differentiable volume renderer provides unbiased and sufficiently low-variance gradients for the inverse problem with 64 samples per pixel.
    Supplementary Section 7 describes the rendering and differentiation; gradient noise and its effect on DPS guidance are not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The 16 unseen clouds used for testing are disjoint from the 1,000 clouds used to train the diffusion model.
    Implicit in the Table 2 caption, but contradicted by Section 4.3, which trains the diffuser on all 1,000 clouds and their augmentations; no split or exclusion is described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Transport-aware Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Single-View Reconstruction of 3D Volumes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6M3PADBE

@misc{pith2026250105226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Transport-aware Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Single-View Reconstruction of 3D Volumes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6M3PADBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05226}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a single-view reconstruction technique of volumetric fields in which multiple light scattering effects are omnipresent, such as in clouds. We model the unknown distribution of volumetric fields using an unconditional diffusion model trained on a novel benchmark dataset comprising 1,000 synthetically simulated volumetric density fields. The neural diffusion model is trained on the latent codes of a novel, diffusion-friendly, monoplanar representation. The generative model is used to incorporate a tailored parametric diffusion posterior sampling technique into different reconstruction tasks. A physically-based differentiable volume renderer is employed to provide gradients with respect to light transport in the latent space. This stands in contrast to classic NeRF approaches and makes the reconstructions better aligned with observed data. Through various experiments, we demonstrate single-view reconstruction of volumetric clouds at a previously unattainable quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05226 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a single view (y) of a volume (V ), we reconstruct a volume (Vˆ ) from its latent representation (θ) that matches y under the same lighting conditions, resulting in a synthesized view (yˆ). A differentiable volume renderer (R) is used to optimize physical scene parameters (ϕ) while simultaneously performing posterior sampling p(θ|y; ϕ), conditioned on the observation, in the latent space of a trained diffusion… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Implicit monoplanar representation. which are rendered under different lighting conditions. The density fields are numerically simulated on regular 3D grids at a resolution of approximately 512 × 256 × 512. 4.2. Volume Latent Encoding We introduce an implicit neural representation for a volume V defined on the cube [−1, 1]3 , based on a single projec￾tion, which we refer to as monoplanar. Unlike previous approaches … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Diffusion Sampling. First column: A cloud from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diffusion Posterior Sampling. Given an observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cloud Super-Resolution. From a cloud on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Transmittance-based single-view reconstruction. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reconstruction comparison. The four leftmost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Recovering ϕ. Top: Reconstructions using parame￾terized DPS under two scenarios – when the background radiance is unknown (Background), and when the entire lighting condition is unknown (Environment). Bottom: Evolution of the recovered background (top) and environment…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Latent enhancement. Starting with a latent code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional results for reconstructions of both, cloud and lighting conditions, varying the material settings of the cloud and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of ζ: Multiple DPS runs were performed with varying values of the ζ multiplier. The top row shows the reconstruction’s approximation to the target view, while the bottom row presents the reconstruction from a different perspective. Higher ζ values lead to bette…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Cloud Interpolation. Top row: linear interpolation between grids, showing a straightforward blending of two cloud structures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cloud Inpainting. The diffuser is employed to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Further comparisons between different reconstruction techniques for single- and sparse-view settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mitra, and Paul Guerrero

    Titas Anciukevicius, Zexiang Xu, Matthew Fisher, Paul Hen- derson, Hakan Bilen, Niloy J. Mitra, and Paul Guerrero. Ren- derdiffusion: Image diffusion for 3d reconstruction, inpaint- ing and generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 12608–12618, 2023. 2

    2023

  2. [2]

    Gaudi: A neural architect for immersive 3d scene generation

    Miguel Angel Bautista, Pengsheng Guo, Samira Abnar, Wal- ter Talbott, Alexander Toshev, Zhuoyuan Chen, Laurent Dinh, Shuangfei Zhai, Hanlin Goh, Daniel Ulbricht, Afshin Dehghan, and Joshua Susskind. Gaudi: A neural architect for immersive 3d scene generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [3]

    Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Ibraheem Alhashim, and Peter Wonka. Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4009–4018, 2021. 1

    2021

  4. [4]

    Chan, Marco Monteiro, Petr Kellnhofer, Jiajun Wu, and Gordon Wetzstein

    Eric R. Chan, Marco Monteiro, Petr Kellnhofer, Jiajun Wu, and Gordon Wetzstein. Pi-GAN: Periodic implicit generative adversarial networks for 3d-aware image synthesis. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5799–5809, 2021. 2

    2021

  5. [5]

    TensoRF: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. TensoRF: Tensorial radiance fields. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 333–350. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  6. [6]

    Single-stage diffusion nerf: A unified approach to 3d generation and reconstruction

    Hansheng Chen, Jiatao Gu, Anpei Chen, Wei Tian, Zhuowen Tu, Lingjie Liu, and Hao Su. Single-stage diffusion nerf: A unified approach to 3d generation and reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2416–2425, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  7. [7]

    Sdfusion: Multimodal 3d shape completion, reconstruction, and generation

    Yen-Chi Cheng, Hsin-Ying Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Alexan- der G Schwing, and Liang-Yan Gui. Sdfusion: Multimodal 3d shape completion, reconstruction, and generation. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4456–4465, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [8]

    Diffusion-sdf: Conditional generative modeling of signed distance func- tions

    Gene Chou, Yuval Bahat, and Felix Heide. Diffusion-sdf: Conditional generative modeling of signed distance func- tions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, pages 2262–2272, 2023. 2

    2023

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Diffusion posterior sam- pling for general noisy inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Michael T Mccann, Marc L Klasky, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion posterior sam- pling for general noisy inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14687, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tore: Token reduction for efficient human mesh re- covery with transformer

    Zhiyang Dou, Qingxuan Wu, Cheng Lin, Zeyu Cao, Qiangqiang Wu, Weilin Wan, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Tore: Token reduction for efficient human mesh re- covery with transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15143–1...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Distwar: Fast differentiable rendering on raster-based ren- dering pipelines

    Sankeerth Durvasula, Adrian Zhao, Fan Chen, Ruofan Liang, Pawan Kumar Sanjaya, and Nandita Vijaykumar. Distwar: Fast differentiable rendering on raster-based ren- dering pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05345, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Global Transport for Fluid Reconstruction with Learned Self- Supervision

    Erik Franz, Barbara Solenthaler, and Nils Thuerey. Global Transport for Fluid Reconstruction with Learned Self- Supervision. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 1632–1642, Nashville, TN, USA, 2021. IEEE. 3

    2021

  5. [13]

    Plenox- els: Radiance Fields without Neural Networks

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenox- els: Radiance Fields without Neural Networks. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5491–5500, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2022. IEEE. 2

    2022

  6. [14]

    3DGen: Triplane la- tent diffusion for textured mesh generation

    Hongrui Fu, Zhaoxi Zhang, Jian Zhang, Ziyu Zhang, Jian- feng Zhang, and Yong Jae Wang. 3DGen: Triplane la- tent diffusion for textured mesh generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00707, 2023. 2, 4

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    GET3D: A generative model of high quality 3d tex- tured shapes learned from images

    Jun Gao, Tianchang Shen, Zian Wang, Wenzheng Chen, Kangxue Yin, Daiqing Li, Or Litany, Zan Gojcic, and Sanja Fidler. GET3D: A generative model of high quality 3d tex- tured shapes learned from images. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    StyleNeRF: A style-based 3d-aware genera- tor for high-resolution image synthesis

    Jiatao Gu, Lingjie Liu, Peng Wang, and Christian Theobalt. StyleNeRF: A style-based 3d-aware genera- tor for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08985, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tenenbaum, and Chuang Gan

    Animesh Gupta, Zekun Li, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Chuang Gan. HyperDiffusion: Generating implicit neu- ral fields with weight-space diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00828, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Henyey and Jesse L

    Louis G. Henyey and Jesse L. Greenstein. Diffuse radiation in the galaxy. The Astrophysical Journal, 93:70–83, 1941. 6

    1941

  11. [19]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Genvs: Gen- erative novel view synthesis with 3d-aware diffusion models

    Ajay Jain, Matthew Tancik, and Pieter Abbeel. Genvs: Gen- erative novel view synthesis with 3d-aware diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07308, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Embergen: Real-time fluid simulation software,

    JangaFX. Embergen: Real-time fluid simulation software,

  14. [23]

    Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions

    Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Holodiffusion: Training a 3d diffusion model using 2d images

    Animesh Karnewar, Andrea Vedaldi, David Novotny, and Niloy J Mitra. Holodiffusion: Training a 3d diffusion model using 2d images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 18423–18433, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [25]

    Differentiable rendering: A survey

    Hiroharu Kato, Deniz Beker, Mihai Morariu, Takahiro Ando, Toru Matsuoka, Wadim Kehl, and Adrien Gaidon. Differentiable rendering: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12057, 2020. 1

    2006 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Neuralfield-ldm: Scene genera- tion with hierarchical latent diffusion models

    Seung Wook Kim, Bradley Brown, Kangxue Yin, Karsten Kreis, Katja Schwarz, Daiqing Li, Robin Rombach, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Neuralfield-ldm: Scene genera- tion with hierarchical latent diffusion models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Visio...

    2023

  18. [27]

    Image-based re- construction of heterogeneous media in the presence of mul- tiple light-scattering

    Ludwic Leonard and R ¨udiger Westermann. Image-based re- construction of heterogeneous media in the presence of mul- tiple light-scattering. Computers & Graphics, 119:103877,

  19. [28]

    3ddesigner: Towards pho- torealistic 3d object generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Gang Li, Heliang Zheng, Chaoyue Wang, Chang Li, Chang- wen Zheng, and Dacheng Tao. 3ddesigner: Towards pho- torealistic 3d object generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14108, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Vision transformer for nerf-based view synthesis from a single input image

    Kai-En Lin, Yen-Chen Lin, Wei-Sheng Lai, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yi-Chang Shih, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Vision transformer for nerf-based view synthesis from a single input image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 806–815, 2023. 2

    2023

  21. [30]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object

    Bowen Liu, Ziyu Zhang, Jianfeng Zhang, Chunyuan Zhang, Yong Jae Wang, and Jian Zhang. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11328, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Black, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Liam Paull, and Weiyang Liu

    Zhen Liu, Yao Feng, Michael J. Black, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Liam Paull, and Weiyang Liu. MeshD- iffusion: Score-based generative 3d mesh modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. 2

    2023

  23. [32]

    Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, and Wenping Wang. Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15008, 2023. 2

    arXiv

  24. [33]

    Compressive neural representations of volumetric scalar fields

    Yuzhe Lu, Kairong Jiang, Joshua A Levine, and Matthew Berger. Compressive neural representations of volumetric scalar fields. Eurographics Conference on Visualization (Eu- roVis), 2021. 2

    2021

  25. [34]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2837–2845, 2021. 2

    2021

  26. [35]

    Realfusion: 360° reconstruction of any ob- ject from a single image

    Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Iro Laina, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Realfusion: 360° reconstruction of any ob- ject from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8446–8455, 2023. 1

    2023

  27. [36]

    Learning controllable 3d diffusion models from single-view images

    Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Christian Rupprecht, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi. Learning controllable 3d diffusion models from single-view images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03820,

    arXiv

  28. [37]

    Gendr: A general- ized differentiable renderer

    Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, Michael Niemeyer, Se- bastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. Gendr: A general- ized differentiable renderer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15143–15155, 2022. 1

    2022

  29. [38]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  30. [39]

    Au- toRF: Learning 3d object radiance fields from single view observations

    Norman M ¨uller, Andrea Simonelli, Lorenzo Porzi, Samuel Rota Bul `o, Matthias Nießner, and Peter Kontschieder. Au- toRF: Learning 3d object radiance fields from single view observations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVP...

    2022

  31. [40]

    Diffrf: Rendering-guided 3d radiance field diffusion

    Norman M ¨uller, Yawar Siddiqui, Lorenzo Porzi, Samuel Rota Bul`o, Peter Kontschieder, and Matthias Nießner. Diffrf: Rendering-guided 3d radiance field diffusion. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18473–18483, 2023. 2

    2023

  32. [41]

    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 (TOG), 41(4):102:1–102:15, 2022. 2

    2022

  33. [42]

    Point-e: A sys- tem for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, and Bob McGrew. Point-e: A sys- tem for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    GIRAFFE: Rep- resenting scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields

    Michael Niemeyer and Andreas Geiger. GIRAFFE: Rep- resenting scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11453– 11464, 2021. 2

    2021

  35. [44]

    Mitsuba 2: A retargetable forward and inverse renderer

    Merlin Nimier-David, Delio Vicini, Tizian Zeltner, and Wen- zel Jakob. Mitsuba 2: A retargetable forward and inverse renderer. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 38(6):1– 17, 2019. 1, 3

    2019

  36. [45]

    Radiative backpropagation: an adjoint method for lightning-fast differentiable rendering

    Merlin Nimier-David, S ´ebastien Speierer, Benoˆıt Ruiz, and Wenzel Jakob. Radiative backpropagation: an adjoint method for lightning-fast differentiable rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(4):146–1, 2020. 1, 3, 2

    2020

  37. [46]

    Unbiased inverse volume rendering with differential trackers

    Merlin Nimier-David, Thomas M ¨uller, Alexander Keller, and Wenzel Jakob. Unbiased inverse volume rendering with differential trackers. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–20, 2022. 3, 7, 2

    2022

  38. [47]

    Autodecoding latent 3d diffusion models

    Evangelos Ntavelis, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Kyle Olszewski, Chaoyang Wang, Luc Van Gool, and Sergey Tulyakov. Autodecoding latent 3d diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05445, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems,...

    2019

  40. [49]

    Barron, Amit H

    Ryan Po, Wang Yifan, Vladislav Golyanik, Kfir Aberman, Jonathan T. Barron, Amit H. Bermano, Eric Ryan Chan, Tali Dekel, Aleksander Holynski, Angjoo Kanazawa, C. Karen Liu, Lingjie Liu, Ben Mildenhall, Matthias Nießner, Bj ¨orn Ommer, Christian Theobalt, Peter Wonka, and Gordon...

    arXiv

  41. [50]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Barron, and Ben Milden- hall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988, 2022. 2 10

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  44. [53]

    GRAF: Generative radiance fields for 3d-aware im- age synthesis

    Katja Schwarz, Yiyi Liao, Michael Niemeyer, and Andreas Geiger. GRAF: Generative radiance fields for 3d-aware im- age synthesis. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 20154–20166, 2020. 2

    2020

  45. [54]

    3d neural field generation using triplane diffusion

    J Ryan Shue, Eric Ryan Chan, Ryan Po, Zachary Ankner, Jiajun Wu, and Gordon Wetzstein. 3d neural field generation using triplane diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20875–20886, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  46. [55]

    Scene Representation Networks: Continuous 3D- Structure-Aware Neural Scene Representations

    Vincent Sitzmann, Michael Zollhoefer, and Gordon Wet- zstein. Scene Representation Networks: Continuous 3D- Structure-Aware Neural Scene Representations. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems . Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2019. 2

    2019

  47. [56]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. Proceed- ings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 2256–2265, 2015. 2

    2015

  48. [57]

    Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency

    Bowen Song, Soo Min Kwon, Zecheng Zhang, Xinyu Hu, Qing Qu, and Liyue Shen. Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08123, 2023. 6

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021. 2

    2021

  50. [59]

    Generative modeling by esti- mating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 32, 2019

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by esti- mating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 32, 2019

    2019

  51. [60]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2021

    2011 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Improved techniques for training score-based generative models

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Improved techniques for training score-based generative models. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 33:12438–12448, 2020. 2

    2020

  53. [62]

    Viewset diffusion: (0-)image-conditioned 3d gener- ative models from 2d data

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Viewset diffusion: (0-)image-conditioned 3d gener- ative models from 2d data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 2

    2023

  54. [63]

    Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Matthew Tancik, Vincent Casser, Xinchen Yan, Sabeek Pradhan, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Barron, and Henrik Kretzschmar. Block-nerf: Scalable large scene neural view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog...

    2022

  55. [64]

    Advances in neural rendering

    Ayush Tewari, Justus Thies, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul Srini- vasan, Edgar Tretschk, Wang Yifan, Christoph Lassner, Vin- cent Sitzmann, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Stephen Lombardi, et al. Advances in neural rendering. In Computer Graphics Forum, pages 703–735. Wiley Online Library, 2022. 2

    2022

  56. [65]

    Tenenbaum, Fr´edo Durand, William T

    Ayush Tewari, Tianwei Yin, George Cazenavette, Semon Rezchikov, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Fr´edo Durand, William T. Freeman, and Vincent Sitzmann. Diffusion with forward models: Solving stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11719, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Mega-nerf: Scalable construction of large- scale nerfs for virtual fly-throughs

    Haithem Turki, Deva Ramanan, and Mahadev Satya- narayanan. Mega-nerf: Scalable construction of large- scale nerfs for virtual fly-throughs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12922–12931, 2022. 2

    2022

  58. [67]

    Path re- play backpropagation: differentiating light paths using con- stant memory and linear time

    Delio Vicini, S ´ebastien Speierer, and Wenzel Jakob. Path re- play backpropagation: differentiating light paths using con- stant memory and linear time. ACM Transactions on Graph- ics (TOG), 40(4):1–14, 2021. 3, 2

    2021

  59. [68]

    Rodin: A generative model for sculpt- ing 3d digital avatars using diffusion

    Chaoyang Wang, Ziyu Zhang, Jian Zhang, Jianfeng Zhang, and Yong Jae Wang. Rodin: A generative model for sculpt- ing 3d digital avatars using diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 14699–14709, 2023. 2

    2023

  60. [69]

    Barron, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, Noah Snavely, and Thomas Funkhouser

    Qianqian Wang, Zhicheng Wang, Kyle Genova, Pratul Srini- vasan, Howard Zhou, Jonathan T. Barron, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, Noah Snavely, and Thomas Funkhouser. IBRNet: Learning multi-view image-based rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pa...

    2021

  61. [70]

    From traditional rendering to differentiable rendering: The- ories and applications

    Yufei Wang, Yuhan Dong, Yuxin Wang, and Yizhou Yu. From traditional rendering to differentiable rendering: The- ories and applications. Science China Information Sciences, 64(1):1–22, 2021. 1

    2021

  62. [71]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 7

    2004

  63. [72]

    Novel view synthesis with diffusion models

    Daniel Watson, William Chan, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Jonathan Ho, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Mohammad Norouzi. Novel view synthesis with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04628, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Differentiable di- rect volume rendering

    Sebastian Weiss and R ¨udiger Westermann. Differentiable di- rect volume rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):562–572, 2021. 3

    2021

  65. [74]

    Fast neural representations for direct volume render- ing

    Sebastian Weiss, Philipp Herm ¨uller, and R ¨udiger Wester- mann. Fast neural representations for direct volume render- ing. In Computer Graphics Forum, pages 196–211. Wiley Online Library, 2022. 2

    2022

  66. [75]

    PlenOctrees for Real-time Rendering of Neural Radiance Fields

    Alex Yu, Ruilong Li, Matthew Tancik, Hao Li, Ren Ng, and Angjoo Kanazawa. PlenOctrees for Real-time Rendering of Neural Radiance Fields. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 5732–5741, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2021. IEEE. 2

    2021

  67. [76]

    pixelNeRF: Neural radiance fields from one or few images

    Alex Yu, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. pixelNeRF: Neural radiance fields from one or few images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 4578–4587,

  68. [77]

    Monte carlo estimators for differential light transport

    Tizian Zeltner, S ´ebastien Speierer, Iliyan Georgiev, and Wenzel Jakob. Monte carlo estimators for differential light transport. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 40(4):1– 16, 2021. 3 11

    2021

  69. [78]

    Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation

    Xiaohui Zeng, Arash Vahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojcic, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022. 2

    2022

  70. [79]

    3dshape2vecset: A 3d shape representation for neu- ral fields and generative diffusion models

    Biao Zhang, Jiapeng Tang, Matthias Niessner, and Peter Wonka. 3dshape2vecset: A 3d shape representation for neu- ral fields and generative diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11445, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  71. [80]

    A dif- ferential theory of radiative transfer

    Cheng Zhang, Lifan Wu, Changxi Zheng, Ioannis Gkioulekas, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Shuang Zhao. A dif- ferential theory of radiative transfer. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(6):1–16, 2019. 3

    2019

  72. [81]

    Path-space dif- ferentiable rendering of participating media

    Cheng Zhang, Zihan Yu, and Shuang Zhao. Path-space dif- ferentiable rendering of participating media. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 40(4):1–15, 2021. 3

    2021

  73. [82]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 8

    2018

  74. [83]

    HoloFusion: Towards photo-realistic 3d generative modeling

    Yifan Zhang, Zhaoxi Zhang, Jian Zhang, Ziyu Zhang, Jian- feng Zhang, and Yong Jae Wang. HoloFusion: Towards photo-realistic 3d generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16214, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  75. [84]

    3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. 3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5826–5835, 2021. 2

    2021

  76. [85]

    DMV3D: Dif- fusion model for voxelized 3d data

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. DMV3D: Dif- fusion model for voxelized 3d data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01458, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  77. [86]

    3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. 3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pages 5826–5835, 2021. 2

    2021

  78. [87]

    CIPS-3D: A 3d-aware generator of gans based on conditionally-independent pixel synthesis

    Peng Zhou, Lingxi Xie, Bingbing Ni, and Qi Tian. CIPS-3D: A 3d-aware generator of gans based on conditionally-independent pixel synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09788, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  79. [88]

    SDFusion: Multimodal 3d shape completion, reconstruction, and generation

    Zhipeng Zhou, Zhaoxi Zhang, Jian Zhang, Ziyu Zhang, Jian- feng Zhang, and Yong Jae Wang. SDFusion: Multimodal 3d shape completion, reconstruction, and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07120, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Make-a-volume: Leveraging latent diffusion models for cross-modality 3d brain mri syn- thesis

    Lingting Zhu, Zeyue Xue, Zhenchao Jin, Xian Liu, Jingzhen He, Ziwei Liu, and Lequan Yu. Make-a-volume: Leveraging latent diffusion models for cross-modality 3d brain mri syn- thesis. In International Conference on Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-Assisted Intervention, p...

    2023

  81. [90]

    Enhancing Latent Space Augmenting the original 1, 000 instances in the Cloudy dataset with additional volumes obtained via transforma- tions requires increasing the encoding time significantly. For example, if encoding 1, 000 clouds requires 2 days on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 309...

  82. [91]

    radiative environment shell

    Differentiable Volume Rendering Module The rendering equation assumes that light travels un- changed between visible surface positions, i.e., the incom- ing radiance at a point xa from xb remains unchanged; Li(xa, ω) = Lo(xb, −ω). However, incorporating partic- ipating media l...

  83. [92]

    Here, αt denotes the noise scheduling parameter at time step t

    Parameterized Diffusion Posterior Sampling Algorithm 2 outlines the adapted DPS method tailored for our parameterized posterior sampling approach. Here, αt denotes the noise scheduling parameter at time step t. In practice, we sample only 100 time steps with a stride of 10, ra...

  84. [93]

    These applications highlight the versatility and power of our approach in addressing dif- ferent challenges within the domain of volumetric scene re- construction and rendering

    Common diffusion-base tasks In this section, we present several applications of our pro- posed generative model and the parameterized diffusion posterior sampling technique, demonstrating their effective- ness across a variety of tasks. These applications highlight the versati...

  85. [94]

    16 shows visual examples from the 32 test cases

    Extended comparisons Fig. 16 shows visual examples from the 32 test cases. 4 T arget+ T arget+ T arget T est View DRT1 0.0367 30 min 13 s 0.2337 DRT3 0.0149 36 min 53 s 0.0649 SPS1 0.0137 30 min 55 s 0.2108 SPS3 0.0060 33 min 13 s 0.0420 DPS1 0.0203 3 min 21 s 0.0671 DPS3 0.02...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.