Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

iVR-GS: Inverse Volume Rendering for Explorable Visualization via Editable 3D Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Independently trained Gaussian splat models can be stitched into a single editable volume scene.

desk verdict A solid, citable step toward explorable 3DGS volume visualization; the composition-by-concatenation claim needs stress-testing, but the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17954 v1 pith:F2T7DN3U submitted 2025-04-24 cs.GR cs.CVcs.LG

Kaiyuan Tang , Siyuan Yao , Chaoli Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.CVcs.LG
keywords volumevisualizationnovelviewsynthesis3DGaussiansplattingtransferfunctionscenecompositioninverserenderingvectorquantizationinteractiveediting
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

iVR-GS sets out to remove the biggest limitation of using novel view synthesis for volume visualization: once a scene is reconstructed, the transfer function and lighting are baked in, so users cannot explore other structures. The paper's claim is that this can be fixed by representing each basic scene as a set of editable 3D Gaussians, training those basic models independently on disjoint opacity ranges of a transfer function, and then composing them into one model by simply concatenating their Gaussian primitives. The composed model then renders the entire volume in real time, supports edits to color, opacity, and light direction and magnitude, and can even infer the rendering settings of a reference image through inverse exploration. The paper reports that this approach beats Plenoxels, CCNeRF, and base 3DGS in reconstruction quality on the tested datasets while keeping the compressed model small.

What carries the argument

The central object is the editable Gaussian primitive, a 3D Gaussian point augmented with a normal and with Blinn-Phong shading attributes (offset color, ambient, diffuse, and specular coefficients, and shininess) in addition to the standard mean, rotation, scale, and opacity. There is also a per-scene palette color shared by all primitives. The composability mechanism is concatenation: because each primitive is spatially explicit and independent, appending the decompressed attribute lists of basic models forms the composed model, whereas grid-based NeRF representations interfere when summed. The Blinn-Phong decomposition is what makes editing possible: changing the palette color, scaling opacity, or adjusting the shading coefficients and light direction re-renders the scene.

What would settle it

Train two basic iVR-GS models on transfer-function bands whose opacity ranges overlap for the same voxel values, compose them by concatenation, and compare against a single model trained on the union of the bands. If rendering shows duplicated surfaces, incorrect transparency ordering, or seams at the overlap, the disjoint-transfer-function composability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a volume-rendered scene does not need to be reconstructed as a single monolithic model under one transfer function. Instead, each visible part of the volume, defined by one basic transfer-function opacity bump, can be learned as its own iVR-GS model made of editable Gaussian primitives; concatenating the attribute lists of these independently trained models produces a composed model that makes every part visible without joint optimization. Each editable Gaussian carries the usual geometry attributes plus a normal and Blinn-Phong shading attributes, so color and lighting are explicit and editable rather than baked into spherical harmonic coefficients. The paper further claims that this representation supports inverse exploration: freezing all primitives and optimizing a small set of global color, opacity, and light parameters lets the composed model match a user-provided reference image and then generalize to novel views. Vector quantization compresses the composed model by roughly four times, and the paper reports a file size up to 7.2 times smaller than base 3DGS on one dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that independently trained Gaussian models, each covering a different non-overlapping visible range of the volume, can be merged by simply concatenating their primitive lists, with no joint optimization, and still render the combined scene correctly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large volumes that normally need a cluster can be explored on a consumer GPU, since rendering cost at inference depends on Gaussian primitives, not volume resolution.
  • A scene can be revealed progressively: each newly trained basic model for another transfer-function band can be appended to the composed model without retraining existing parts.
  • Users can relight a reconstructed scene from new light directions because normals and Blinn-Phong parameters are stored per primitive, not baked into view-dependent colors.
  • Given one reference image, the composed model can recover the color, opacity, and light settings that produced it and then render novel views under those settings.
  • With vector quantization, adding more transfer-function bands increases model size more slowly, so storage scales more gracefully than storing each basic model at full precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to treat time steps or ensemble members as basic scenes, so composition would let users flip between states in real time while keeping the whole volume visible.
  • The disjoint-transfer-function assumption suggests a stress test the paper does not run: if two basic transfer functions overlap in value range, the concatenated primitive list may contain duplicate geometry for the same structures; a fusion rule for overlapping bands would generalize the method.
  • The paper's stated limitations, composed models reaching GB scale for hundreds of basic scenes and Blinn-Phong being the assumed lighting model, define where the approach stops; replacing Blinn-Phong with a learned per-primitive BRDF while keeping concatenation-based composition is a testable next step.
  • Inverse exploration currently tunes global color, opacity, and light parameters; extending it to per-region or per-primitive parameters would let a reference image drive local transfer-function changes, which the paper does not explore.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces iVR-GS, a 3D Gaussian splatting-based inverse volume rendering framework. For each of several disjoint opacity transfer functions (basic TFs), a basic iVR-GS model is trained on multi-view images; the Gaussians are augmented with normals and Blinn-Phong shading attributes so that color, opacity, and lighting can be edited at inference time. Basic models are compressed with vector quantization and then composed by concatenating their Gaussian attribute lists, with no joint optimization, to make the full volume visible. The paper compares reconstruction quality, speed, and model size against Plenoxels, CCNeRF, and base 3DGS on four volumes and demonstrates relighting, iterative editing, and inverse volume exploration on three additional datasets. The main asserted contribution is that independently trained basic models can be merged without extra optimization and then edited without accessing the original volume data.

Significance. The pipeline is well motivated: it targets the real bottleneck of interactive exploration of large volumes on low-end devices and combines standard components (3DGS, Blinn-Phong, VQ) in a reproducible way. Concrete strengths include a released implementation, an ablation of VQ compression, a comparison of one-stage versus two-stage training, and consistent quantitative gains over three baselines on four datasets. If the composition assumption holds for general volumes, the work would be a solid contribution to visualization-oriented novel view synthesis. The main unresolved question is whether composition by concatenation is valid beyond the favorable cases in the evaluation; the paper's own appendix also makes a scalability claim that is not backed by a quality experiment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.5, Eq. (2)] Section 4.5 composes basic models by appending Gaussian attribute lists and assumes that the opacity fields of independently trained basic scenes combine correctly under the depth-sorted alpha blend in Eq. (2). This is not a consequence of the disjointness of the TF ranges: alpha blending is a transmittance product, and Gaussians have unbounded spatial support, so a primitive trained for one value range can have non-negligible opacity at another value range's surface. For close or nested iso-surfaces, which the authors themselves identify as typical of volume scenes in Section 5.1, the concatenated model can produce over-occlusion, duplicated geometry, or seams, and no joint optimization exists to correct for this. The four datasets in Table 1 do not include a stress case of this kind. I request an experiment with synthetic or real volumes containing nested or near-adjacent iso-surfaces, reporting per-basic and composed PSNR, or a clear limitation statement restricting the composability claim to spatially well-separated basic scenes.
  2. [Appendix 2, 'Number of TFs'] Appendix 2 asserts that increasing the number of basic TFs 'will not influence the rendering quality of the VolVis scene' because each basic model is trained independently. The accompanying experiment (Appendix Figure 4) reports only model size as a function of the number of TFs, with no PSNR or LPIPS measurement. Since the scalability of the composed model is part of the paper's central contribution, this quality-versus-TF-count claim should either be supported by an experiment or explicitly downgraded to an untested expectation.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 2] Sections 5.1 and Table 2 report a single optimization run per method and dataset, and on three of the four datasets the composed-scene PSNR advantage of iVR-GS over base 3DGS is small (27.19 vs 26.45 on chameleon, 23.04 vs 22.95 on rotstrat, 29.20 vs 28.73 on supernova). Without repeated runs or error bars, the claim that iVR-GS achieves the best reconstruction quality for all datasets is not statistically established. In addition, Section 5.1 says baselines are optimized 'in the same way as iVR-GS,' but Section 4.2 describes an alpha-channel L1+SSIM loss used for base 3DGS and iVR-GS; the manuscript does not state whether Plenoxels and CCNeRF received the same alpha supervision. If they did not, the comparison is not controlled, because the authors credit alpha supervision with improving reconstruction quality. Please specify the exact losses used for each baseline or re-run with matched supervision.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 (overview)] The phrase 'editable Guassians' in the overview paragraph is a typo and should read 'Gaussians'.
  2. [Table 1] The Table 1 header contains a duplicated 'volume volume' and does not clearly separate the CPU/GPU memory column from the rendering-time column; please reformat the header.
  3. [Section 4.5] The text in Section 4.5 says scaling ka, kd, ks, and beta adjusts the magnitudes of the shading terms, but in Eq. (3c) beta is an exponent; scaling it changes the specular falloff rather than the magnitude. Please rephrase, or adjust beta in log space if a magnitude-like control is intended.
  4. [Section 5.2, Figure 7] The iterative editing results in Figure 7 are presented qualitatively; since editing is a claimed contribution, a quantitative metric (e.g., per-edit PSNR against a re-rendered reference for a controlled edit) or a small user study would strengthen the evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: composition and inverse exploration are empirical extrapolations verified against external ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's core claims are empirical constructions validated against independently rendered ground-truth images, not analytic derivations that reduce to their own inputs. The central composition claim (Section 4.5, implemented by 'appending attribute values of primitives from basic iVR-GS models into a single parameter list') is tested in Section 5.1 against separately rendered composed-scene ground truth and compared with Plenoxels, CCNeRF, and base 3DGS; whether concatenation of independently trained Gaussians reproduces the joint volume rendering is an empirical property of the trained primitives, not a tautology of the training losses or definitions. The inverse volume exploration procedure (Section 4.6) does optimize color, opacity, and lighting transformation parameters against a single reference image, but the reported PSNR/LPIPS values (Table 5) are evaluated on 181 novel viewpoints rendered with the inferred settings, which is an extrapolation task rather than a re-reporting of the fitted reference image. The editable-Gaussian shading attributes are optimized against multi-view Blinn-Phong renderings and then the editing operations are validated against ground-truth relighting images (Table 4, Figure 6), so the editing capability is not definitional. The authors' prior work ([40], [41], [42]) appears only in related-work comparisons and is not used to justify a central premise; no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation is invoked. The only passage resembling an unsupported derivation is the appendix statement that increasing the number of basic TFs 'will not influence the rendering quality' because models are trained independently; that is an empirical scalability claim, not a circular reduction, and any weakness there is a correctness or stress-testing limitation rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ability to compose independently trained Gaussian models and on the adequacy of Blinn-Phong shading for editable decomposition. Several hyperparameters (view counts, loss weights, iteration counts) are chosen by hand. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • View sampling entropy thresholds = 42, 92, 162 images
    Chosen in Section 4.1/5.2 to set the number of training views per basic scene, based on heuristic entropy ranges.
  • Loss weights = 0.8 L1 / 0.2 SSIM, regularization 0.1 and 0.01
    Set in Section 5.1; hand-tuned, but not shown to be optimal across datasets.
  • Training iterations = 30k base, 10k editable, 1k inverse
    Selected in Section 5.1/5.3; a design choice that affects model quality and speed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 3DGS rendering equation (Eq. 1-2) correctly models the appearance of volume-rendered scenes.
    The method relies on the standard 3DGS rasterization to represent the volume's appearance, borrowed from Kerbl et al. [22].
  • domain assumption Blinn-Phong reflection model (Eq. 3) decomposes observed color into ambient, diffuse, and specular components.
    Used in Section 4.3 to make Gaussians editable; assumes the training images were rendered with Blinn-Phong, and that lighting can be factored per Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Normal consistency loss (Eq. 6) is a valid proxy for geometry quality.
    Assumes local planarity of depth to compute pseudo normals; this may fail at sharp edges or thin structures.
  • domain assumption Composing parameters of independently trained Gaussian models yields a correct composed scene.
    Core assumption in Section 4.5; no proof or analysis of failure modes beyond empirical results on four datasets.
  • domain assumption k-means VQ compression preserves rendering quality.
    Empirically demonstrated, but the codebook size and quantization error are not analyzed theoretically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of iVR-GS: Inverse Volume Rendering for Explorable Visualization via Editable 3D Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2T7DN3U

@misc{pith2026250417954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: iVR-GS: Inverse Volume Rendering for Explorable Visualization via Editable 3D Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2T7DN3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17954}
}
read the original abstract

In volume visualization, users can interactively explore the three-dimensional data by specifying color and opacity mappings in the transfer function (TF) or adjusting lighting parameters, facilitating meaningful interpretation of the underlying structure. However, rendering large-scale volumes demands powerful GPUs and high-speed memory access for real-time performance. While existing novel view synthesis (NVS) methods offer faster rendering speeds with lower hardware requirements, the visible parts of a reconstructed scene are fixed and constrained by preset TF settings, significantly limiting user exploration. This paper introduces inverse volume rendering via Gaussian splatting (iVR-GS), an innovative NVS method that reduces the rendering cost while enabling scene editing for interactive volume exploration. Specifically, we compose multiple iVR-GS models associated with basic TFs covering disjoint visible parts to make the entire volumetric scene visible. Each basic model contains a collection of 3D editable Gaussians, where each Gaussian is a 3D spatial point that supports real-time scene rendering and editing. We demonstrate the superior reconstruction quality and composability of iVR-GS against other NVS solutions (Plenoxels, CCNeRF, and base 3DGS) on various volume datasets. The code is available at https://github.com/TouKaienn/iVR-GS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17954 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of iVR-GS. (a) For each basic scene corresponding to one basic TF with a unique visible part, we render a collection of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparing the reconstruction quality of iVR-GS trained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The screenshot of iVR-GS interface showing rendering results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing scene composing results of four methods w.r.t. GT. While base 3DGS and iVR-GS have similar reconstruction quality, iVR-GS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results of iVR-GS estimation on different Blinn-Phong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing NVS and relighting results with GT. Top to bottom: a part of the basic scene composition result for combustion, five-jet, and vortex. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of iterative scene editing results with composed iVR-GS models on the vortex and five-jet datasets. The light source moves from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Zoom-in NVS results with pixel-wise perceivable differences of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Inverse volume exploration results of iVR-GS on the reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparing relighting results of iVR-GS and LERP. Left to right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparing basic scenes results of four methods w.r.t. GT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model sizes (MB) of the composed iVR-GS under different num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing rendering results of iVR-GS using one-stage or two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Different iVR-GS models rendering results. (a) and (c) use the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://gitlab.kitware.com/ paraview/paraview

    ParaView NVIDIA IndeX plugin. https://gitlab.kitware.com/ paraview/paraview. Accessed: 2024-08-15. 3

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ahrens, S

    J. Ahrens, S. Jourdain, P. O’Leary, J. Patchett, D. H. Rogers, and M. Pe- tersen. An image-based approach to extreme scale in situ visualization and analysis. In Proceedings of International Conference for High Perfor- mance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 424–434, 2014. doi: 10.1109/SC.2014.40 2

    doi:10.1109/sc.2014.40 2014

  3. [4]

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, D. Verbin, P. P. Srinivasan, and P. Hedman. Zip-NeRF: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 19697–19705,

    work page

  4. [5]

    Berger, J

    M. Berger, J. Li, and J. A. Levine. A generative model for volume rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(4):1636–1650, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2816059 1, 2

    arXiv 2019

  5. [6]

    Z. Fan, K. Wang, K. Wen, Z. Zhu, D. Xu, and Z. Wang. LightGaussian: Unbounded 3D Gaussian compression with 15× reduction and 200+ FPS. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17245, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.17245 2, 4

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.17245 2023

  6. [7]

    Fridovich-Keil, A

    S. Fridovich-Keil, A. Yu, M. Tancik, Q. Chen, B. Recht, and A. Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5501– 5510, 2022. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00542 2, 3, 5

    arXiv 2022

  7. [8]

    J. Gao, C. Gu, Y . Lin, H. Zhu, X. Cao, L. Zhang, and Y . Yao. Relightable 3D Gaussian: Real-time point cloud relighting with BRDF decomposition and ray tracing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16043, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2311.16043 2, 4, 7

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.16043 2023

  8. [9]

    P. Gu, J. Han, D. Z. Chen, and C. Wang. Reconstructing unsteady flow data from representative streamlines via diffusion and deep learning based denoising. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 41(6):111–121,

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    P. Gu, J. Han, D. Z. Chen, and C. Wang. Scalar2Vec: Translating scalar fields to vector fields via deep learning. In Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Vi- sualization Symposium, pp. 31–40, 2022. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS53943 .2022.00012 1

    2022

  2. [11]

    L. Guo, S. Ye, J. Han, H. Zheng, H. Gao, D. Z. Chen, J.-X. Wang, and C. Wang. SSR-VFD: Spatial super-resolution for vector field data analysis and visualization. In Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 71–80, 2020. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS48177.2020.8737 1

    2020

  3. [12]

    J. Han, J. Tao, H. Zheng, H. Guo, D. Z. Chen, and C. Wang. Flow field reduction via reconstructing vector data from 3D streamlines using deep learning. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 39(4):54–67, 2019. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2018.2881523 1

    2019

  4. [13]

    Han and C

    J. Han and C. Wang. TSR-VFD: Generating temporal super-resolution for unsteady vector field data. Computers & Graphics, 103:168–179, 2022. doi: 10.1016/J.CAG.2022.02.001 1

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    Han and C

    J. Han and C. Wang. VCNet: A generative model for volume completion. Visual Informatics, 6(2):62–73, 2022. doi: 10.1016/J.VISINF.2022.04. 004 1

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    Han and C

    J. Han and C. Wang. CoordNet: Data generation and visualization gen- eration for time-varying volumes via a coordinate-based neural network. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(12):4951– 4963, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3197203 1

    2023

  7. [16]

    J. Han, H. Zheng, Y . Xing, D. Z. Chen, and C. Wang. V2V: A deep learning approach to variable-to-variable selection and translation for multivariate time-varying data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1290–1300, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020. 3030346 1

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    W. He, J. Wang, H. Guo, K.-C. Wang, H.-W. Shen, M. Raj, Y . S. G. Nashed, and T. Peterka. InSituNet: Deep image synthesis for parameter space exploration of ensemble simulations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):23–33, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.201...

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    F. Hong, C. Liu, and X. Yuan. DNN-V olVis: Interactive volume visualiza- tion supported by deep neural network. In Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 282–291, 2019. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS. 2019.00041 1, 2, 3

    2019

  10. [20]

    Ji and H.-w

    G. Ji and H.-w. Shen. Dynamic view selection for time-varying volumes. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(5):1109– 1116, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006.137 3

    2006 doi

  11. [22]

    Kerbl, G

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimkühler, and G. Drettakis. 3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4):139:1–139:14, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3592433 1, 2, 3, 5, 10

    2023 doi

  12. [23]

    Lazova, V

    V . Lazova, V . Guzov, K. Olszewski, S. Tulyakov, and G. Pons-Moll. Control-NeRF: Editable feature volumes for scene rendering and manip- ulation. In Proceedings of IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 4329–4339, 2023. doi: 10.1109/W ACV56688.2023. 00432 2

    2023

  13. [25]

    L. Li, Z. Shen, Z. Wang, L. Shen, and L. Bo. Compressing volumetric radiance fields to 1 MB. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 4222–4231, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ CVPR52729.2023.00411 2

    2023

  14. [26]

    Liang, Q

    Z. Liang, Q. Zhang, Y . Feng, Y . Shan, and K. Jia. GS-IR: 3D Gaussian splatting for inverse rendering. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21644–21653, 2024. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02045 2

    2024

  15. [27]

    J. Liu, W. Hu, Z. Yang, J. Chen, G. Wang, X. Chen, Y . Cai, H.-A. Gao, and H. Zhao. Rip-NeRF: Anti-aliasing radiance fields with ripmap-encoded platonic solids. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Conference Papers, pp. 125:1–125:11, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3641519.3657402 2

    2024

  16. [28]

    K. Liu, C. Jiao, X. Gao, and C. Bi. UGINR: Large-scale unstructured grid reduction via implicit neural representation. Journal of Visualization, 27(5):983–996, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s12650-024-01003-y 2

    2024 doi

  17. [29]

    L. Liu, J. Gu, K. Zaw Lin, T.-S. Chua, and C. Theobalt. Neural sparse voxel fields. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 15651–15663, 2020. 2

    2020

  18. [30]

    Y . Lu, K. Jiang, J. A. Levine, and M. Berger. Compressive neural represen- tations of volumetric scalar fields. Computer Graphics Forum, 40(3):135– 146, 2021. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14295 2

    2021 doi

  19. [31]

    Mildenhall, P

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 405–421, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58452-8_24 2

    2020 doi

  20. [32]

    Müller, A

    T. Müller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 41(4):102:1–102:15, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3528223.3530127 2

    2022

  21. [33]

    Niedermayr, C

    S. Niedermayr, C. Neuhauser, K. Petkov, K. Engel, and R. Westermann. Application of 3D Gaussian splatting for cinematic anatomy on consumer class devices. In Proceedings of Vision, Modeling, and Visualization, pp. 1–13, 2024. doi: 10.2312/vmv.20241195 1, 2, 3, 4, 9

    2024 doi

  22. [34]

    Niedermayr, J

    S. Niedermayr, J. Stumpfegger, and R. Westermann. Compressed 3D Gaussian splatting for accelerated novel view synthesis. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 10349–10358, 2024. 2, 4

    2024

  23. [35]

    X. Pan, Z. Lai, S. Song, and G. Huang. ActiveNeRF: Learning where to see with uncertainty estimation. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 230–246, 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-19827 -4_14 9

    2022 doi

  24. [36]

    Papantonakis, G

    P. Papantonakis, G. Kopanas, B. Kerbl, A. Lanvin, and G. Drettakis. Reducing the memory footprint of 3D Gaussian splatting. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 7(1):16:1– 16:17, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3651282 2, 4

    2024 doi

  25. [37]

    Remondino and S

    F. Remondino and S. El-Hakim. Image-based 3D modelling: A review. The Photogrammetric Record, 21(115):269–291, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j. 1477-9730.2006.00383.x 2

    2006

  26. [38]

    N. Shi, J. Xu, H. Li, H. Guo, J. Woodring, and H.-W. Shen. VDL-Surrogate: A view-dependent latent-based model for parameter space exploration of ensemble simulations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):820–830, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209413 2

    2023

  27. [39]

    J. Tang, X. Chen, J. Wang, and G. Zeng. Compressible-composable NeRF via rank-residual decomposition. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 14798–14809, 2022. 2, 3, 5

    2022

  28. [40]

    Tang and C

    K. Tang and C. Wang. ECNR: Efficient compressive neural representation of time-varying volumetric datasets. In Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Visu- alization Conference, pp. 72–81, 2024. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS60374. 2024.00017 1, 2

    2024

  29. [41]

    Tang and C

    K. Tang and C. Wang. STSR-INR: Spatiotemporal super-resolution for time-varying multivariate volumetric data via implicit neural representa- tion. Computers & Graphics, 119:103874, 2024. doi: 10.1016/J.CAG. 2024.01.001 1

    2024 doi

  30. [42]

    Tang and C

    K. Tang and C. Wang. StyleRF-V olVis: Style transfer of neural radiance fields for expressive volume visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 31(1):613–623, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2024.3456342 2, 3

    2025

  31. [43]

    Tikhonova, C

    A. Tikhonova, C. D. Correa, and K.-L. Ma. Explorable images for visualiz- ing volume data. In Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 177–184, 2010. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2010.5429595 2

    2010

  32. [44]

    Tikhonova, C

    A. Tikhonova, C. D. Correa, and K.-L. Ma. An exploratory technique for coherent visualization of time-varying volume data. Computer Graphics Forum, 29(3):783–792, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01690.x 2

    2010

  33. [45]

    Tzeng and K.-L

    F.-Y . Tzeng and K.-L. Ma. A cluster-space visual interface for arbitrary dimensional classification of volume data. In Proceedings of Joint Euro- graphics - IEEE TCVG Symposium on Visualization, pp. 17–24, 2004. doi: 10.2312/VISSYM/VISSYM04/017-024 3

    2004 doi

  34. [46]

    Wang and J

    C. Wang and J. Han. DL4SciVis: A state-of-the-art survey on deep learning for scientific visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(8):3714–3733, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2022.3167896 1

    2023

  35. [47]

    L. Wang, X. Zhao, and A. E. Kaufman. Modified dendrogram of attribute space for multidimensional transfer function design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(1):121–131, 2012. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2011.23 3

    2012

  36. [48]

    Y . Wang, W. Chen, J. Zhang, T. Dong, G. Shan, and X. Chi. Efficient volume exploration using the Gaussian mixture model. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(11):1560–1573, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.97 3

    2011 doi

  37. [49]

    Y . Wang, J. Wang, Y . Qu, and Y . Qi. RIP-NeRF: Learning rotation- invariant point-based neural radiance field for fine-grained editing and compositing. In Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Mul- timedia Retrieval, pp. 125–134, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3591106.3592276 2

    2023

  38. [50]

    Y . Wang, J. Wang, C. Wang, W. Duan, Y . Bao, and Y . Qi. SCARF: Scalable continual learning framework for memory-efficient multiple neural radi- ance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04482, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2409.04482 2

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [51]

    Weiss, P

    S. Weiss, P. Hermüller, and R. Westermann. Fast neural representations for direct volume rendering. Computer Graphics Forum, 41(6):196–211,

  40. [52]

    Q. Wu, D. Bauer, M. J. Doyle, and K.-L. Ma. Interactive volume visualiza- tion via multi-resolution hash encoding based neural representation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(8):5404–5418,

  41. [53]

    S. W. Wurster, T. Xiong, H.-W. Shen, H. Guo, and T. Peterka. Adaptively placed multi-grid scene representation networks for large-scale data visu- alization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):965–974, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327194 2

    2024

  42. [54]

    S. Yao, J. Han, and C. Wang. GMT: A deep learning approach to general- ized multivariate translation for scientific data analysis and visualization. Computers & Graphics, 112:92–104, 2023. doi: 10.1016/J.CAG.2023.04. 002 1

    2023 doi

  43. [55]

    Y . Yao, J. Zhang, J. Liu, Y . Qu, T. Fang, D. McKinnon, Y . Tsin, and L. Quan. NeILF: Neural incident light field for physically-based material estimation. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 700–716, 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-19821-2_40 2, 4, 7

    2022 doi

  44. [56]

    Yuan and H

    S. Yuan and H. Zhao. SlimmeRF: Slimmable radiance fields. In Proceed- ings of International Conference on 3D Vision, pp. 64–74, 2024. doi: 10. 1109/3DV62453.2024.00143 2

    2024

  45. [57]

    Zhang, Y

    J. Zhang, Y . Yao, S. Li, J. Liu, T. Fang, D. McKinnon, Y . Tsin, and L. Quan. NeILF++: Inter-reflectable light fields for geometry and material estimation. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 3601–3610, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.003...

    2023

  46. [58]

    Zhang, P

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang. The unreason- able effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 586–595, 2018. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00068 6

    2018

  47. [2021]

    doi: 10.1109/MCG.2021.3089627 1

    2021

  48. [2022]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.14578 2

    doi

  49. [2024]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3293121 2

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.