Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Triangle Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Triangle Splatting claims that an unstructured soup of triangles, rendered through a compact normalized window function, can be optimized end-to-end and outdo Gaussian and convex primitives in visual quality, training speed, and rendering…

desk verdict Genuinely new compact triangle window function with credible LPIPS wins, but the paper's speed and training claims are contradicted by its own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19175 v1 pith:OCX64SYB submitted 2025-05-25 cs.CV

Jan Held , Renaud Vandeghen , Adrien Deliege , Abdullah Hamdi , Silvio Giancola , Anthony Cioppa , Andrea Vedaldi , Bernard Ghanem
show 2 more authors
Andrea Tagliasacchi Marc Van Droogenbroeck
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords trianglesplattingdifferentiablerenderingradiancefieldsnovelviewsynthesis3DGaussianwindowfunctionmesh-based
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

Triangle Splatting seeks to bring the triangle back as the core primitive for photorealistic 3D reconstruction from photos. The authors propose a differentiable renderer that optimizes an unstructured soup of triangles directly from image gradients, using a compact window function that confines each triangle's influence to its own projected footprint. They report that this representation beats 3D and 2D Gaussian Splatting and 3D Convex Splatting in visual fidelity, training time, and rendering speed, and matches or exceeds the perceptual quality of the implicit field Zip-NeRF on indoor scenes. Because the optimized output is an ordinary triangle mesh, it renders in standard game engines at thousands of frames per second, closing the gap between neural radiance-field training and conventional graphics pipelines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the window function $I(p)=\mathrm{ReLU}(\phi(p)/\phi(s))^\sigma$, defined from the signed distance field $\phi$ of the projected triangle, the incenter $s$, and a learned smoothness $\sigma$. Unlike sigmoid-based windows used in prior convex splatting, this function is exactly 1 at the incenter, exactly 0 at the boundary and outside, so a triangle never bleeds beyond its vertices; the normalization also makes the same $\sigma$ work at every depth because uniform scaling cancels in the ratio. This window is what makes an unstructured triangle soup optimizable: compact support gives tight gradients to vertex positions, and the $\sigma$ exponent controls how solid or soft each triangle is, which in turn drives the adaptive densification that samples new triangles where coverage is sparse.

What would settle it

Measure the log-probability of a triangle configuration before and after a midpoint-subdivision or clone-with-noise step under the sampling distribution used in the densification section (built from opacity and $\sigma^{-1}$). If the ratio is not 1, or if no well-defined distribution exists, the MCMC premise fails; a simpler check is to ablate the specific split/clone moves against uniform or random densification with the same triangle budget and see whether LPIPS on Mip-NeRF360 changes materially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a triangle soup—unstructured, disconnected triangles—can be optimized end-to-end for novel-view synthesis and outperform both volumetric (3D Gaussian Splatting and convex splatting) and planar (2D Gaussian Splatting) primitives. The key to making triangles trainable is a normalized window function $I(p)=\mathrm{ReLU}(\phi(p)/\phi(s))^\sigma$, which is 1 at the triangle's incenter, 0 at the boundary and outside, and controlled by a single smoothness parameter $\sigma$. This bounded, depth-invariant falloff lets gradients flow to vertex positions while keeping each primitive's support tightly inside its projected geometry, so the optimizer moves vertices instead of inflating soft shapes. The authors claim this yields sharper reconstructions, lower LPIPS than 2DGS, BBSplat, 3DGS, and 3DCS on Mip-NeRF360, and higher perceptual quality than Zip-NeRF on indoor scenes, with the final triangle soup renderable unmodified in mesh pipelines at over 2,400 FPS.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that splitting one triangle into four (or cloning and jittering it) keeps the whole triangle configuration exactly as probable as before, so densification can be described as sampling from one stable distribution; if that probability equality does not hold, the density control is a heuristic and the reported quality may rest on hand-tuned details rather than on a principled sampler.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, any radiance-field scene can be trained as a triangle soup and then rendered without conversion in off-the-shelf mesh engines, with the paper reporting 2,400+ FPS at 1280x720 on the Garden scene on an RTX 4090.
  • Perceptual quality on Mip-NeRF360 indoor scenes would put a primitive-based, non-volumetric method ahead of the implicit Zip-NeRF in LPIPS, an outcome that would shift comparison standards away from PSNR.
  • Because each pixel only evaluates signed distances to three edges, triangle splatting would be strictly cheaper per pixel than convex splatting's six edges, yielding the reported 4x faster inference over 3DCS.
  • The depth-invariant window function removes the manual depth-scaling of smoothness that convex splatting needs, simplifying the optimizer and stabilizing coverage in sparse regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would test whether the MCMC framing is doing real work: if densification is run with the same budget but without the split-into-four/clone-and-noise moves, and the quality gap is small, then the method's gains come from the window function and loss terms, not from the sampling story.
  • The bounded-support window function is a general recipe: replacing the triangle SDF with the SDF of a quad or tetrahedron should extend the same 'normalized peak, zero at boundary' scheme to other primitive families.
  • The paper's own meshing section is thin, but the representation makes connected-mesh extraction more natural than Gaussian splatting because vertices are already explicit and coplanar; a direct triangulation or vertex-merge step could turn the soup into a watertight mesh.
  • The consistently lower PSNR alongside better LPIPS suggests that pixel-wise metrics punish sharp solid primitives; if this holds, the field's ranking of smooth versus sharp representations may need to lean more heavily on perceptual metrics.
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 proposes Triangle Splatting, a differentiable renderer that optimizes an unstructured soup of 3D triangles for novel-view synthesis. Each triangle is projected to screen space and rendered with a normalized window function based on the exact signed distance field of its 2D projection; vertex positions, opacity, sharpness, and spherical-harmonic colors are optimized end-to-end. An adaptive pruning and densification routine, presented as MCMC-inspired, controls the number of triangles. Experiments on Mip-NeRF360 and Tanks and Temples report LPIPS, PSNR, SSIM, training time, rendering FPS, and memory usage, along with an annealed mesh-renderer pipeline where the authors claim over 2,400 FPS on the Garden scene. The central claim is that Triangle Splatting surpasses 3DGS, 2DGS, and 3DCS in visual fidelity, training speed, and rendering throughput.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the method is a useful step toward optimizing triangle primitives directly for radiance-field-style rendering. The window function in Eq. (1) is compact, has a formal depth-invariance proof in Eq. (4), and the ablations in Table 3 isolate the contributions of the main loss terms. The reported LPIPS improvements over 2DGS and 3DCS, and the competitive performance on indoor Mip-NeRF360 scenes, suggest that triangle-based primitives are a viable alternative to Gaussian and convex primitives. However, the headline comparative claims are not supported by the paper's own measurements, the MCMC framing of densification is not formalized, and the high-FPS mesh pipeline is not evaluated for quality. The core primitive and window function are valuable, but the presentation overstates the results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 1; Tables 1 and 2] The headline claim that Triangle Splatting surpasses 3DGS, 2DGS, and 3DCS in visual fidelity, training speed, and rendering throughput is contradicted by the paper's own numbers: Table 1 reports 134 FPS for 3DGS versus 97 FPS for Triangle Splatting on Mip-NeRF360, and Table 2 reports 29 minutes for 2DGS versus 39 minutes for Triangle Splatting. The Speed & Memory paragraph states that Triangle Splatting achieves "faster training and rendering," which is also inconsistent with the 29m versus 39m row. Please revise the abstract, Section 1, and the Speed & Memory discussion to state precisely which methods are improved on which axes, and add convergence curves or per-iteration metrics before claiming faster convergence.
  2. [Section 3.2] The MCMC-based densification is not specified. The text asserts that the transition "preserves the probability of the state" and that splitting a triangle into four is a move between equally probable samples, but it never defines the state distribution, the transition kernel, an acceptance rule, or how the probability is computed after the number of primitives changes. Since the state space changes dimension under split-by-four, the claim requires a reversible-jump or explicit hierarchical construction to be meaningful. The alternating Bernoulli sampling based on inverse sigma and opacity is not a substitute for a formal acceptance rule. Please either provide these details or present the densification as a heuristic and remove the MCMC interpretation; the current text leaves the adaptive-density mechanism, which is central to the method's coverage behavior, underspecified.
  3. [Section 5, Table 4; Supplementary A.5] The 2,400+ FPS result is measured with a different renderer and a different representation than the one used in the quantitative comparisons. After annealing opacity and sigma and zeroing SH in the final 5,000 iterations, the triangles are rendered by an off-the-shelf mesh renderer; no PSNR, SSIM, or LPIPS is reported for this annealed mesh output. The paper therefore does not establish that the mesh-rendered result preserves the fidelity of the trained splatting model, and the throughput claim in the abstract and Section 1 conflates two pipelines. Please report quality metrics for the annealed mesh output on the same test views, or clearly separate the two claims and avoid attributing the mesh-renderer FPS to the differentiable splatting renderer.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The aggregated Mip-NeRF360 columns omit average PSNR and SSIM, even though per-scene values are given in Tables 9 and 10; please report the averages in the main table so that readers can compare all three standard metrics at a glance.
  2. [Abstract; Section 5; Supplementary A.5] The mesh-renderer FPS numbers are inconsistent: the abstract and Table 4 say "over 2,400 FPS" for Garden, while Supplementary A.5 reports 3,000 FPS; please clarify the configuration for each measurement and why they differ.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The paper does not explain how gradients are computed through the non-smooth max in Eq. (1); since the method is described as differentiable and the window function is a core contribution, please state the subgradient or relaxed rule used in the implementation.
  4. [Section 4.1; Tables 8-10] No error bars or standard deviations are reported for the LPIPS, PSNR, and SSIM averages, and several differences (e.g., Triangle Splatting versus 3DCS on Mip-NeRF360 LPIPS) are small; adding variation across random seeds or multiple runs would strengthen the comparisons.
  5. [Section 3.1] The claim that the LogSumExp approximation means "only one of the three vertices has any influence on the final shape" is stated without supporting evidence; please provide a plot or quantitative comparison if it is used to justify the exact max choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the triangle window function is a novel definition with directly verified scaling properties, and all quality and speed claims are benchmarked against external methods.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a differentiable triangle-splatting renderer. The window function in Eq. (1) is introduced as a definition, not derived from the quantities it predicts; its stated properties (value 1 at the incenter, 0 at the boundary and outside) follow immediately from that definition, and the depth-scaling claim is proved in Eq. (4) from the same definition. This is a definition with a proof of a scaling property, not a prediction that reduces to a fitted parameter. The densification routine references the MCMC framework of Kheradmand et al. [22], which shares an author with the present paper, but that reference is used as an algorithmic prior for adaptive density control rather than as a proof of the paper's rendering or quality claims. The paper's comparative claims are empirical: they are supported by Tables 1-4 against external methods on Mip-NeRF360, Tanks and Temples, and DTU. Even where the paper's own tables qualify the headline (e.g., 3DGS has higher FPS than Triangle Splatting in Table 1, and the 2,400+ FPS figure comes from the annealed mesh pipeline in A.5 rather than the differentiable renderer), that is a consistency or correctness issue, not circularity. Hyperparameters are tuned empirically, but no reported quantitative result is the by-construction consequence of those choices. No equation in the paper sets a predicted output equal to a fitted input, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 16 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is carried by standard splatting equations plus a large set of hand-set hyperparameters. No new physical entity is introduced; the window function is a mathematical definition. The main unproved load-bearing assumptions are that volume rendering applies to triangle splats, that SfM-based random triangles are a sufficient initialization, and that the MCMC-style densification preserves the state distribution.

free parameters (16)
  • k (initial triangle scale) = 2.2
    Supp A.2: k defines initial triangle size relative to nearest-neighbor distance; determined empirically.
  • initial opacity = 0.28
    Supp A.2: fixed at initialization for all triangles.
  • initial sigma = 1.16
    Supp A.2: initial sharpness of the window function.
  • densification schedule = 30% every 500 iterations, from iteration 500 to 25,000
    Supp A.2: chosen schedule for when and how fast to add triangles.
  • feature_lr = 0.0025
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • opacity_lr = 0.014
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • lr_convex_points_init = 0.0018 outdoor, 0.0015 indoor
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • lr_sigma = 0.0008
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • lambda_normals = 0.0001 outdoor, 0.00004 indoor
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • lambda_opacity = 0.0055
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • lambda_size = 1e-8 outdoor, 5e-8 indoor
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • max_noise_factor = 1.5
    Table 5 hyperparameter for cloning noise.
  • opacity_dead = 0.014
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • split_size = 24.0
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • importance_threshold = 0.022 outdoor, 0.0256 indoor
    Table 5 hyperparameter.
  • tau_prune = not specified in manuscript
    Section 3.2: user-defined threshold for pruning by maximum blending weight; value omitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The depth-ordered alpha composition equation from 3DGS, 2DGS, and 3DCS is a valid radiance model for triangle splats.
    Section 3.1: the rendering equation is the same as prior works [14,21] and the derivation is delegated to [39].
  • domain assumption A random equilateral triangle at each SfM point, with size k times the nearest-neighbor distance, is a sufficient initialization for optimization.
    Section 3.3 and Supp A.2: one triangle per SfM point with k fixed empirically; the size regularization Ls is needed to grow triangles into uncovered regions.
  • ad hoc to paper The actual max signed distance field, despite being non-smooth at triangle boundaries, provides usable gradients through the window function.
    Section 3.1 discusses why LogSumExp is poor for small triangles but provides no gradient or convergence analysis for the max function.
  • ad hoc to paper The densification transition preserves the probability of the state, making split-by-four a valid MCMC move.
    Section 3.2 asserts this without defining the target distribution, likelihood, or transition kernel.
  • ad hoc to paper Pruning triangles seen in fewer than two views with more than one pixel of coverage removes overfitted floaters without destroying valid geometry.
    Section 3.2 and Figure 4 describe this heuristic; the threshold tau_prune is user-defined and its value is not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triangle Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCX64SYB

@misc{pith2026250519175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triangle Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCX64SYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19175}
}
read the original abstract

The field of computer graphics was revolutionized by models such as Neural Radiance Fields and 3D Gaussian Splatting, displacing triangles as the dominant representation for photogrammetry. In this paper, we argue for a triangle comeback. We develop a differentiable renderer that directly optimizes triangles via end-to-end gradients. We achieve this by rendering each triangle as differentiable splats, combining the efficiency of triangles with the adaptive density of representations based on independent primitives. Compared to popular 2D and 3D Gaussian Splatting methods, our approach achieves higher visual fidelity, faster convergence, and increased rendering throughput. On the Mip-NeRF360 dataset, our method outperforms concurrent non-volumetric primitives in visual fidelity and achieves higher perceptual quality than the state-of-the-art Zip-NeRF on indoor scenes. Triangles are simple, compatible with standard graphics stacks and GPU hardware, and highly efficient: for the \textit{Garden} scene, we achieve over 2,400 FPS at 1280x720 resolution using an off-the-shelf mesh renderer. These results highlight the efficiency and effectiveness of triangle-based representations for high-quality novel view synthesis. Triangles bring us closer to mesh-based optimization by combining classical computer graphics with modern differentiable rendering frameworks. The project page is https://trianglesplatting.github.io/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19175 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose a new representation for differentiable rendering based on the most classical of 3D primitives: the triangle. We show how a triangle soup (i.e. unstructured, disconnected triangles) can be optimized effectively, generating state-of-the-art novel view synthesis images while being immediately compatible with classical rendering pipelines. The figure shows the final rendered output (left), a visualization of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Byproduct of the triangle-based representation – Triangle Splatting unifies differentiable scene optimization with traditional graphics pipelines. The optimized triangle soup is compatible with any mesh-based renderer, enabling seamless integration into traditional graphics pipelines. In a game engine, we render at 2,400+ FPS at 1280×720 resolution on an RTX4090 (left) and 300+ FPS on a consumer laptop (right). 1 In… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Triangle window function (1D and 2D) – We visualize the window functions of prior works [8, 14] (bottom) vs. the one introduced in our paper (top) in both 1D (left) and 2D (right). We show how the window function changes as we vary the smoothness control parameter σ. As σ decreases, note that both can approximate the window function of a triangle. However, as σ increases, the support of (2) exceeds the footprint of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Triangle prunning – To reduce floaters, we prune triangles seen in fewer than two views with more than one pixel of coverage, removing those that are overfitted by a single training view. Discussion: simpler depth-dependent scaling. In 3D Gaussian Splatting, each 3D Ga…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Limitations of PSNR – Due to its inherent smoothness, the Gaussian primitive tends to perform better on the PSNR metric, which evaluates pixel-wise differences, despite being blurrier. In the highlighted region, our method (TS) achieves a PSNR of 18.41, compared to 21.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results – We visually compare our method to 3DCS [14] and 2DGS [15]. Triangle Splatting captures finer details and produces more accurate renderings of real-world scenes, with less blurry results than 2DGS, and a higher visual quality than 3DCS [14]. 5 Abla…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation study (window function) – We compare against the Sigmoid function (left) which fails to recover background regions accurately, while ours doesn’t (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study (triangles as convexes) – We compare our method (left) against 3DCS with convexes made of three vertices (right), which results in degenerate geometry, as emphasized in the zoom-ins. patible with game engines. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Number of contributions per pixel – In background regions where the initial point cloud is sparse, triangles reduce their σ to increase coverage across their interior. This leads to more solid shapes and, consequently fewer contributions per pixel. A.2 Initialization &…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results – We visually compare our method to 2DGS [15] and 3DCS [14]. Triangle Splatting captures finer details and produces more accurate renderings of real-world scenes, with less blurry results than 2DGS, and a higher visual quality than 3DCS [14]. 17 […
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mesh extraction from depth maps – We extract meshes by applying TSDF fusion to the predicted depth maps, as followed in 2DGS [15] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Normal map and rendered image – The normal map reveals a smooth surface, with the triangle orientations consistently aligned to follow the local geometry. A.5 Transformation to mesh-based renderer In the final 5,000 training iterations, we prune all triangles with opa…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Byproduct of the triangle-based representation – In a game engine, we render at 3,000 FPS at 1280×720 resolution on a RTX4090. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Fourier Splatting: Generalized Fourier encoded primitives for scalable radiance fields

    cs.CV 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Planar Fourier-boundary surfels let a single radiance-field model render at continuous levels of detail by truncating coefficients, with STE gradients and HYDRA densification enabling stable training.

  2. AniGS: Bridging Rendering and Diffusion Prior for 3D Scene Animation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AniGS animates a static 3D Gaussian Splatting scene by iteratively distilling video-diffusion motion into a time-conditioned deformation field while keeping static regions fixed.

  3. SVR-GS: Spatially Variant Regularization for Probabilistic Masks in 3D Gaussian Splatting

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SVR-GS replaces MaskGS's global mask average with a per-pixel spatial mask regularizer, cutting Gaussian counts by up to 5.63x over 3DGS with about 0.4-0.5 dB average PSNR loss.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Mip-NeRF: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. In IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pages 5835–5844, Montréal, Can., Oct

    work page

  2. [3]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-NeRF: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. In IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pages 19640–19648, Paris, Fr., Oct. 2023. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.01804. 3, 6, 7

    arXiv 2023

  3. [4]

    Chan, Connor Z

    Eric R. Chan, Connor Z. Lin, Matthew A. Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini de Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Efficient geometry-aware 3D generative adversarial networks. In IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 16102–16112, New Orleans, LA, USA, Jun

    work page

  4. [5]

    TensoRF: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. TensoRF: Tensorial radiance fields. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV), volume 13692 of Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., pages 333–350, Tel Aviv, Israël, 2022. Springer Nat. Switz. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-19824-3_20 . 3

    work page 2022

  5. [6]

    Beyond Gaussians: Fast and high-fidelity 3D splatting with linear kernels

    Haodong Chen, Runnan Chen, Qiang Qu, Zhaoqing Wang, Tongliang Liu, Xiaoming Chen, and Yuk Ying Chung. Beyond Gaussians: Fast and high-fidelity 3D splatting with linear kernels. arXiv, abs/2411.12440:1–14, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2411.12440. 3

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.12440 2024

  6. [8]

    CvxNet: Learnable convex decomposition

    Boyang Deng, Kyle Genova, Soroosh Yazdani, Sofien Bouaziz, Geoffrey Hinton, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. CvxNet: Learnable convex decomposition. In IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 31–41, Seattle, WA, USA, Jun. 2020. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00011. 2, 4

    arXiv 2020

  7. [9]

    Learning to render novel views from wide-baseline stereo pairs

    Yilun Du, Cameron Smith, Ayush Tewari, and Vincent Sitzmann. Learning to render novel views from wide-baseline stereo pairs. In IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 4970–4980, Vancouver, Can., Jun. 2023. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00481. 3

    arXiv 2023

  8. [11]

    Point-Based Graphics

    Markus Gross and Hanspeter Pfister. Point-Based Graphics . Morgan Kauffmann Publ. Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, Jun. 2007. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-370604-1.X5000-7 . 3 11

    work page 2007

Show all 41 references
  1. [14]

    3D convex splatting: Radiance field rendering with 3D smooth convexes

    Jan Held, Renaud Vandeghen, Abdullah Hamdi, Adrien Deliège, Anthony Cioppa, Silvio Giancola, Andrea Vedaldi, Bernard Ghanem, and Marc Van Droogenbroeck. 3D convex splatting: Radiance field rendering with 3D smooth convexes. In IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVP...

    2025

  2. [15]

    2D Gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2D Gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH Conf. Pap., volume 35, pages 1–11, Denver, CO, USA, Jul. 2024. ACM. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3641519. 3657428. 2, 3, 6, 7, ...

    2024 doi

  3. [16]

    Deformable radial kernel splatting

    Yi-Hua Huang, Ming-Xian Lin, Yang-Tian Sun, Ziyi Yang, Xiaoyang Lyu, Yan-Pei Cao, and Xiaojuan Qi. Deformable radial kernel splatting. arXiv, abs/2412.11752, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.11752. 3

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [18]

    Large scale multi-view stereopsis evaluation

    Rasmus Jensen, Anders Dahl, George V ogiatzis, Engil Tola, and Henrik Aanaes. Large scale multi-view stereopsis evaluation. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR) , pages 406–413, Columbus, OH, USA, Jun. 2014. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.o...

    2014 doi

  5. [19]

    Neural 3D mesh renderer

    Hiroharu Kato, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. Neural 3D mesh renderer. InIEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 3907–3916, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, Jun

  6. [20]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. In Symp. Geom. Process., pages 61–70, Cagliari, Italy, Jun. 2006. Eurographics Assoc. URL http://diglib.eg.org/handle/10.2312/SGP.SGP06.061-070. 2

    2006 doi

  7. [21]

    3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkuehler, and George Drettakis. 3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):1–14, Jul. 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3592433. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17

    2023 doi

  8. [22]

    3D Gaussian splatting as Markov chain Monte Carlo

    Shakiba Kheradmand, Daniel Rebain, Gopal Sharma, Weiwei Sun, Jeff Tseng, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. 3D Gaussian splatting as Markov chain Monte Carlo. In Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), volume 37, pages 80965–80986, Vancouver,...

    2024

  9. [23]

    Tanks and temples: bench- marking large-scale scene reconstruction

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: bench- marking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(4):1–13, Jul. 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073599. 6, 7

    2017

  10. [24]

    Tetra-NeRF: Representing neural radiance fields using tetrahedra

    Jonas Kulhanek and Torsten Sattler. Tetra-NeRF: Representing neural radiance fields using tetrahedra. In IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pages 18412–18423, Paris, Fr., Oct

  11. [25]

    Deformable beta splatting

    Rong Liu, Dylan Sun, Meida Chen, Yue Wang, and Andrew Feng. Deformable beta splatting. arXiv, abs/2501.18630, 2025. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.18630. 6, 7

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [26]

    Soft rasterizer: A differentiable renderer for image-based 3D reasoning

    Shichen Liu, Weikai Chen, Tianye Li, and Hao Li. Soft rasterizer: A differentiable renderer for image-based 3D reasoning. In IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pages 7707–7716, Seoul, South Korea, Oct. 2019. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/ 10.11...

    2019

  13. [27]

    Loper and Michael J

    Matthew M. Loper and Michael J. Black. OpenDR: An approximate differentiable renderer. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV), volume 8695 of Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. , pages 154– 169, Zürich, Switzerland, 2014. Springer Int. Publ. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-10584-0_11 . 3

    2014

  14. [28]

    Dynamic 3D Gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis

    Jonathon Luiten, Georgios Kopanas, Bastian Leibe, and Deva Ramanan. Dynamic 3D Gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis. In Int. Conf. 3D Vis. (3DV), pages 800–809, Davos, Switzerland, Mar. 2024. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/ 10.1109...

    2024

  15. [29]

    Barron, and Yinda Zhang

    Alexander Mai, Peter Hedman, George Kopanas, Dor Verbin, David Futschik, Qiangeng Xu, Falko Kuester, Jonathan T. Barron, and Yinda Zhang. EVER: Exact volumetric ellipsoid rendering for real-time view synthesis. arXiv, abs/2410.01804, 2024. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2...

    doi arXiv

  16. [30]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoor- thi, and Ren Ng. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthe- sis. In Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV), volume 12346 of Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. , pages 405–421, Virt...

    2020

  17. [31]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. NeRF. Commun. ACM, 65(1):99–106, Dec. 2021. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3503250. 2

    2021

  18. [32]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas Müller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Trans. Graph., 41(4):1–15, Jul. 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3528223.3530127. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2022

  19. [33]

    StopThePop: Sorted Gaussian splatting for view-consistent real-time rendering

    Lukas Radl, Michael Steiner, Mathias Parger, Alexander Weinrauch, Bernhard Kerbl, and Markus Steinberger. StopThePop: Sorted Gaussian splatting for view-consistent real-time rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 43(4):1–17, Jul. 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3658187. 15

    2024

  20. [34]

    KiloNeRF: Speeding up neural radiance fields with thousands of tiny MLPs

    Christian Reiser, Songyou Peng, Yiyi Liao, and Andreas Geiger. KiloNeRF: Speeding up neural radiance fields with thousands of tiny MLPs. In IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pages 14315–14325, Montréal, Can., Oct. 2021. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://d...

    2021

  21. [35]

    MERF: Memory-efficient radiance fields for real-time view synthesis in unbounded scenes

    Christian Reiser, Rick Szeliski, Dor Verbin, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Andreas Geiger, Jon Barron, and Peter Hedman. MERF: Memory-efficient radiance fields for real-time view synthesis in unbounded scenes. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):1–12, Jul. 2023. URL https: //doi.org...

    2023 doi

  22. [36]

    Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm

    Johannes L. Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 4104–4113, Las Vegas, NV , USA, Jun. 2016. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.445. 6

    2016 doi

  23. [37]

    Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction

    Cheng Sun, Min Sun, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction. In IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 5449–5459, New Orleans, LA, USA, Jun. 2022. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). ...

    2022

  24. [38]

    BillBoard splatting (BBSplat): Learnable textured primitives for novel view synthesis

    David Svitov, Pietro Morerio, Lourdes Agapito, and Alessio Del Bue. BillBoard splatting (BBSplat): Learnable textured primitives for novel view synthesis. arXiv, abs/2411.08508,

    arXiv

  25. [39]

    V olume rendering digest (for NeRF)

    Andrea Tagliasacchi and Ben Mildenhall. V olume rendering digest (for NeRF). arXiv, abs/2209.02417, 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.02417. 3

    2022 doi arXiv

  26. [40]

    LinPrim: Linear primitives for differentiable volumetric rendering

    Nicolas von Lützow and Matthias Nießner. LinPrim: Linear primitives for differentiable volumetric rendering. arXiv, abs/2501.16312, 2025. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2501.16312. 3

    2025 doi

  27. [42]

    NeRF++: Analyzing and improving neural radiance fields

    Kai Zhang, Gernot Riegler, Noah Snavely, and Vladlen Koltun. NeRF++: Analyzing and improving neural radiance fields. arXiv, abs/2010.07492, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2010.07492. 3

    2010 doi arXiv

  28. [43]

    HUGS: Holistic urban 3D scene understanding via Gaussian splatting

    Hongyu Zhou, Jiahao Shao, Lu Xu, Dongfeng Bai, Weichao Qiu, Bingbing Liu, Yue Wang, Andreas Geiger, and Yiyi Liao. HUGS: Holistic urban 3D scene understanding via Gaussian splatting. In IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pages 21336–21345, Seattle, WA, USA, ...

    2024

  29. [2018]

    Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018. 00411. 2, 3

    2018 doi

  30. [2021]

    Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922. 2021.00580. 3

    2021

  31. [2022]

    Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688. 2022.01565. 3

    2022

  32. [2023]

    Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. (IEEE). URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV51070. 2023.01692. 3 12

    2023

  33. [2024]

    6, 7, 16

    URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.08508. 6, 7, 16

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.