Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

VolTex: Food Volume Estimation using Text-Guided Segmentation and Neural Surface Reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 VolTex lets a user type a food name and obtain a 3D volume estimate with a mean error of 4.46% on the MTF benchmark.

desk verdict A useful text-guided food-segmentation application with a real depth-data contradiction that must be fixed before the RGB-only claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02895 v1 pith:EGUL4GBD submitted 2025-06-03 cs.GR cs.CV

Ahmad AlMughrabi , Umair Haroon , Ricardo Marques , Petia Radeva This is my paper
classification cs.GRcs.CV
keywords foodvolumeestimationtext-guidedsegmentationneuralsurfacereconstructionNeuS2DEVAscalingfactordietarymonitoringMetaFood3Ddataset
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

VolTex claims that a user who types the name of a food item into a mobile-captured video can receive an accurate 3D volume estimate of that item without drawing a single mask. The framework couples a text-guided video segmenter with a neural implicit surface reconstruction, then converts the unitless mesh to real-world units using a reference board. On the MTF (MetaFood3D) benchmark, it reports a mean volume error of 4.46%, the smallest scaling-factor absolute error (0.0080) among VolETA, ININ, and FoodR, and a lower mean error than the manual-mask-based VolETA pipeline (7.84%). The significance is that this makes food portion measurement practical for dietary monitoring and medical nutrition, since no depth sensor, manual annotation, or extra hardware is required.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is a three-stage pipeline. First, DEVA (a decoupled video segmenter) turns a user text prompt into per-frame binary masks for the target food and for a reference object. Second, NeuS2 models the scene as an implicit surface $S = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^3 \mid f(x) = 0\}$, where $f$ is a signed distance function optimized against the masked images and the PixSfM camera poses; the zero level set becomes the triangular mesh. Third, a scaling factor $s = \ell_{real}/\mathrm{med}(d_j)$, computed from the known reference dimension and the median distance between projected reference corners, rescales the mesh to real-world units, and tetrahedral decomposition of the mesh gives the volume. The key responsibility of the text-guided segmentation is to determine which parts of the scene enter the reconstruction, so the accuracy of the volume is tied to the completeness of those masks.

What would settle it

Compute the intersection-over-union (IoU) between each DEVA-produced food mask and the MTF ground-truth mask for every scene, and plot it against the per-scene volume MAPE. If scenes with low IoU (such as 'cake', where the paper's Fig. 3 shows a cropped mask) consistently show the highest volume errors, then the paper's central claim—that text-guided segmentation can substitute for manual masks—fails exactly where segmentation is imperfect; if no such correlation appears, then the reconstruction and scaling are compensating for segmentation errors, and the claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that text-guided segmentation can replace manual masks in neural-reconstruction-based food volume estimation without losing accuracy, and that it adds user control over which object is measured. Given a set of RGB images and a label such as 'cake', the DEVA segmenter produces masks for the food and for a reference board; NeuS2 then fits a signed distance function whose zero set is the food mesh; and a scaling factor derived from the known reference size ($s = \ell_{real}/\mathrm{med}(d_j)$) converts the mesh into metric units before tetrahedral volume integration. Across 13 MTF scenes, the reported mean volume MAPE is 4.46% and the mean absolute scaling-factor error is 0.0080, with the lowest standard deviation (0.0123) among the compared methods, which the authors take as evidence of both accuracy and consistency. The framework also automates reference-object segmentation, which VolETA required users to do manually.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the text-guided segmentation produces masks that fully contain the target food object in every frame; if a mask crops part of the food, the neural surface reconstruction cannot recreate the missing region and the volume is underestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can measure one food item in a multi-object scene by typing its name, a capability previous NeRF-based food volume methods lacked.
  • The automated reference-object segmentation removes the manual step in VolETA's scaling procedure, reducing user effort and one source of operator error.
  • Because depth images are excluded, the pipeline works with ordinary RGB video from mobile cameras, broadening applicability.
  • The low scaling-factor error (0.0080) implies that the unitless NeuS2 meshes are converted to metric units consistently across scenes, so volumes should generalize beyond the benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the text-guided segmenter were swapped for a stronger open-vocabulary model, the mask-completeness bottleneck identified in the Limitations could shrink, potentially pushing volume error below the reported 4.46%.
  • A natural next step not explored in the paper is to prompt for every food label in a scene and sum the resulting volumes, turning the framework into a full meal-estimation tool.
  • Adding a mesh-completeness check (e.g., detecting open boundaries or comparing mask coverage against the reconstructed silhouette) could flag or repair the cropped-mask failures the paper documents for 'cake'.
  • The Chamfer-distance results show the text-guided meshes are farther from ground truth than ININ and FoodR meshes (0.0054 vs. 0.0032 and 0.0028), so a combined volume-plus-shape evaluation would clarify whether the volume accuracy comes at a geometric fidelity cost.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents VolTex, an end-to-end framework for estimating the volume of a user-specified food item from multi-view RGB images. It combines text-guided video segmentation (DEVA) with NeuS2 neural surface reconstruction, followed by a reference-object-based scaling factor and tetrahedral volume integration. On a subset of the MTF (MetaFood3D) dataset, the authors report a mean volume MAPE of 4.46% and a scaling-factor absolute error of 0.0080, outperforming VolETA, ININ, and FoodR in volume accuracy, while also reporting Chamfer distances for shape fidelity. The central claim is that a user can type a food label and obtain accurate volume estimates without manual mask annotation and without depth input.

Significance. The problem is relevant, and the proposed combination of a text-promptable video segmenter with neural surface reconstruction is a sensible and timely idea. The volume computation itself is a direct measurement (reference scaling plus tetrahedral decomposition, Eqs. 5–7) rather than a learned regression, which is a methodological strength; the main uncertainty lies in the scaling-factor fine-tuning step. If the evaluation were complete and the depth-free claim were verified, the result would be a practically useful step toward user-controllable food volume estimation. The promise of publicly available source code is a further positive element.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.2, Fig. 2] Section 4.2 states that depth images are excluded for real-world applicability, but the Fig. 2 caption says 'We fine-tune the scaling factor using depth information and the food masks.' These statements are mutually exclusive. If depth data are used in the fine-tuning, the reported 4.46% mean MAPE does not validate a depth-free text-guided pipeline, and the comparison with VolETA (which the related work describes as using RGBD images) is not apples-to-apples. The authors must either state that depth is not used anywhere and change the caption accordingly, or rerun the experiments without depth and report those numbers.
  2. [Tables 1, 2, Fig. 4] The results tables and Fig. 4 cover only 13 of the 20 MTF scenes (IDs 1–11, 13, 14; IDs 12 and 15–20 are absent) with no explanation. The reported mean MAPE of 4.46% and the mean Chamfer distance are therefore subset statistics, not dataset-level statistics. Please report all 20 scenes, or explicitly define the evaluation subset and justify why the remaining scenes are excluded.
  3. [3.2.3, Eq. (5), Fig. 2] The 'fine-tuned scaling factor S_f' is mentioned in Fig. 2 and in Sec. 3.2.3 but is never defined. Eq. (5) defines the reference-based scaling factor s, and Eq. (6) applies 'the scaling factor' to the food mesh, yet the fine-tuning operation that converts s into S_f is described only in words ('using depth information and the food masks'), with no objective function, input variables, or algorithm. Because the scaling factor directly converts the unitless NeRF mesh into real-world units, an undefined fine-tuning step makes the reported volume errors non-reproducible and raises the possibility that S_f is fitted to the target volumes. The authors should provide a precise definition of S_f and confirm that neither it nor any other step uses ground-truth volumes.
  4. [Table 1, Discussion] The mean Chamfer distance of the proposed method (0.0054) is higher (worse) than ININ (0.0032) and FoodR (0.0028), yet the Discussion only states that 'Chamfer distance compares our text-guided segmentation with ground truth masks' without acknowledging this negative comparison. Since the abstract claims 'high-fidelity 3D meshes,' the paper should either soften that claim or explain why the higher Chamfer distance is expected or acceptable when using text-guided masks instead of ground-truth masks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The mean row of Table 2 appears to have the VolETA(Ref.) and ININ columns transposed: the value 0.1028 should be the VolETA mean and 0.0756 should be the ININ mean, based on the column entries and the text. Also, no absolute error is reported for VolETA even though the text claims the proposed method surpasses 'both VolETA and ININ'; please add the VolETA absolute error or qualify the claim.
  2. [4.2] The dataset description says 'hard (1 image per scene)' without stating the number of hard scenes; please give the counts per difficulty level so that the 20-scene total is clear.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract says 'Extensive evaluations on the MetaFood3D dataset,' but the experiments are reported for a subset; please make the exact scope explicit in the abstract.
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] The 'Rel.' row in Table 1 and the 'Rel.†' entry in Table 2 are not defined in the text; please define the metric and clarify whether it is relative improvement over Ours or a relative error.
  5. [Introduction] The claim 'first exploration for user prompts in food volume estimation' is strong; please add 'to our knowledge' and, if any related prompt-based food volume work exists, cite it.
  6. [Acknowledgments] The spelling 'Acknowldgements' appears in the acknowledgments heading; please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: the volume estimate is a reference-scaled geometric measurement, not a fit to ground-truth volumes; the nonzero score reflects a minor self-citation and an undefined 'fine-tuned scaling factor' phrase that is a consistency concern rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed prediction chain is text prompt -> DEVA masks -> NeuS2 mesh -> reference-object scaling -> tetrahedral volume. The scaling factor in Eq. (5) is computed from a known reference dimension and the median projected corner distance, and Eq. (7) integrates the scaled mesh; neither expression contains the ground-truth food volume, so the reported MAPE is an external comparison rather than a quantity forced by construction. The only hand-set constant, delta in Eq. (4), prunes isolated mesh pieces and does not enter the volume integral for the retained component. The scaling-factor approach is cited to the authors' VolETA [1], but the present paper states the formula explicitly, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. A genuine inconsistency exists: Fig. 2 says 'We fine-tune the scaling factor using depth information and the food masks,' while Sec. 4.2 says 'Although depth images are available, we exclude them to ensure real-world applicability.' This is a reproducibility and validity concern about the depth-free claim, not a circular reduction of the volume estimate to its inputs. The Limitations section openly concedes that segmentation errors crop 'cake' and underestimate volume, which is again a limitation rather than circularity. Overall, no circular step is established; the modest nonzero score reflects the minor self-citation and the undefined fine-tuning phrase.

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

The central claim rests on off-the-shelf components (PixSfM, DEVA, NeuS2, MeshLab) and the reference-based scaling approach from the authors' prior VolETA. The only explicitly hand-chosen parameter is δ; the NeuS2 normalization and the undefined fine-tuned scaling factor add further unstated degrees of freedom. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • δ (diameter threshold) = 0.05 (5% of largest piece diameter)
    Hand-chosen threshold in Eq. (4) for removing isolated mesh pieces; controls the cleaned food mesh and therefore the final volume. No cross-validation or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • NeuS2 scene normalization = aabb scale=1, scale=0.15, offset=[0.5,0.5,0.5]
    Fixed hyperparameters applied to each scene (Sec. 4.1). Chosen by hand; they determine the SDF initialization and mesh resolution and are not justified against alternatives.
  • Fine-tuned scaling factor S_f = Not reported
    Mentioned in Fig. 2 as computed by fine-tuning the reference-based scaling factor using depth information and food masks. The procedure and resulting values are absent, making S_f an unaccounted fitted quantity if it was used.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Tetrahedral decomposition (Eq. 7) computes the volume of a closed, watertight tetrahedralized mesh.
    Standard result; requires the reconstructed mesh to be watertight and consistently oriented, which is not verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption PixSfM provides camera poses consistent up to a global scale with the reference object's metric size.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2.1; if poses are erroneous, the reconstructed reference mesh and food mesh are distorted, corrupting the scaling factor.
  • domain assumption DEVA text-guided segmentation produces masks that cover the full food object in every frame.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2.1 and Fig. 3; the paper's own Limitations section shows a cake case where the mask cropped part of the food, which directly undermines this assumption.
  • domain assumption NeuS2 recovers the true object surface from masked RGB images under the given normalization.
    Relies on the NeuS2 paper [22]; no proof or validation of surface accuracy beyond aggregate Chamfer distances.
  • domain assumption The reference object (chessboard) has a known real-world dimension ℓ_real and is reconstructible with detectable projected corners.
    Needed for Eq. (5); the corner detection method is not described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VolTex: Food Volume Estimation using Text-Guided Segmentation and Neural Surface Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGUL4GBD

@misc{pith2026250602895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VolTex: Food Volume Estimation using Text-Guided Segmentation and Neural Surface Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGUL4GBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02895}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate food volume estimation is crucial for dietary monitoring, medical nutrition management, and food intake analysis. Existing 3D Food Volume estimation methods accurately compute the food volume but lack for food portions selection. We present VolTex, a framework that improves \change{the food object selection} in food volume estimation. Allowing users to specify a target food item via text input to be segmented, our method enables the precise selection of specific food objects in real-world scenes. The segmented object is then reconstructed using the Neural Surface Reconstruction method to generate high-fidelity 3D meshes for volume computation. Extensive evaluations on the MetaFood3D dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in isolating and reconstructing food items for accurate volume estimation. The source code is accessible at https://github.com/GCVCG/VolTex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between our reconstruction (left) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our approach for estimating food volume in (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between original images, ground truth masks, and masks generated by DEVA. The dataset used is MetaFood3D. The red region highlights any artifacts or missing segments. We use the labels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between ours and VolETA reconstructions, and the ground-truth using the MTF dataset [10]. We use the labels in Table.1 as user text prompts for our framework. NeRF-based 3D reconstruction. We evaluated our approach using the MTF dataset, which showed competi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V oleta: One-and few-shot food volume esti- mation

    Ahmad AlMughrabi, Umair Haroon, Ricardo Marques, and Petia Radeva. V oleta: One-and few-shot food volume esti- mation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01717, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Foodmem: Near real-time and precise food video segmentation

    Ahmad AlMughrabi, Adri ´an Gal ´an, Ricardo Marques, and Petia Radeva. Foodmem: Near real-time and precise food video segmentation. Pattern Recognition Letters, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Parametric correspondence and chamfer matching: Two new techniques for image matching

    Harry G Barrow, Jay M Tenenbaum, Robert C Bolles, and Helen C Wolf. Parametric correspondence and chamfer matching: Two new techniques for image matching. In Proceedings: Image Understanding Workshop, pages 21–27. Science Applications, Inc, 1977. 5

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Tracking without bells and whistles

    Philipp Bergmann, Tim Meinhardt, and Laura Leal-Taixe. Tracking without bells and whistles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 941–951, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Tracking anything with decoupled video segmentation

    Ho Kei Cheng, Seoung Wug Oh, Brian Price, Alexan- der Schwing, and Joon-Young Lee. Tracking anything with decoupled video segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1316–1326, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Meshlab: an open-source mesh processing tool

    Paolo Cignoni, Marco Callieri, Massimiliano Corsini, Mat- teo Dellepiane, Fabio Ganovelli, Guido Ranzuglia, et al. Meshlab: an open-source mesh processing tool. In Eurographics Italian chapter conference , pages 129–136. Salerno, Italy, 2008. 3

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description

    Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabi- novich. Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , pages 224–236, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Mask selection and propaga- tion for unsupervised video object segmentation

    Shubhika Garg and Vidit Goel. Mask selection and propaga- tion for unsupervised video object segmentation. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1680–1690, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Msn: efficient online mask selection network for video instance segmentation

    Vidit Goel, Jiachen Li, Shubhika Garg, Harsh Maheshwari, and Humphrey Shi. Msn: efficient online mask selection network for video instance segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10452, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Metafood cvpr 2024 challenge on physically informed 3d food reconstruction: Methods and results

    Jiangpeng He, Yuhao Chen, Gautham Vinod, Talha Ibn Mahmud, Fengqing Zhu, Edward Delp, Alexander Wong, Pengcheng Xi, Ahmad AlMughrabi, Umair Haroon, et al. Metafood cvpr 2024 challenge on physically informed 3d food reconstruction: Methods and results. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Integration of an image-based dietary assessment paradigm into dietetic training improves food portion esti- mates by future dietitians

    Dang Khanh Ngan Ho, Wan-Chun Chiu, Yu-Chieh Lee, Hsiu-Yueh Su, Chun-Chao Chang, Chih-Yuan Yao, Kai- Lung Hua, Hung-Kuo Chu, Chien-Yeh Hsu, and Jung-Su Chang. Integration of an image-based dietary assessment paradigm into dietetic training improves food portion esti- mates by f...

    2021

  4. [12]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1,

  5. [13]

    Multiple hypothesis tracking revisited

    Chanho Kim, Fuxin Li, Arridhana Ciptadi, and James M Rehg. Multiple hypothesis tracking revisited. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE international conference on computer vi- sion, pages 4696–4704, 2015. 2

    2015

  6. [14]

    Pixel-perfect structure-from- motion with featuremetric refinement

    Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Viktor Lars- son, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixel-perfect structure-from- motion with featuremetric refinement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5987–5997, 2021. 2, 3, 5

    2021

  7. [15]

    Food vol- ume estimation based on reference

    Yuanyuan Liu, Jianqiang Lai, Wenjie Sun, Zhiqiang Wei, Ailing Liu, Weiyan Gong, and Yongquan Yang. Food vol- ume estimation based on reference. In Proceedings of the 2020 the 4th International Conference on Innovation in Ar- tificial Intelligence, pages 84–89, 2020. 1

    2020

  8. [16]

    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. 1, 2

    2021

  9. [17]

    Efficient variants of the icp algorithm

    Szymon Rusinkiewicz and Marc Levoy. Efficient variants of the icp algorithm. In Proceedings third international confer- ence on 3-D digital imaging and modeling , pages 145–152. IEEE, 2001. 5

    2001

  10. [18]

    Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks

    Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4938–4947, 2020. 2

    2020

  11. [19]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4104–4113, 2016. 2

    2016

  12. [20]

    Delicate textured mesh recovery from nerf via adaptive surface refinement

    Jiaxiang Tang, Hang Zhou, Xiaokang Chen, Tianshu Hu, Er- rui Ding, Jingdong Wang, and Gang Zeng. Delicate textured mesh recovery from nerf via adaptive surface refinement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17739–17749, 2023. 2

    2023

  13. [21]

    Multiple people tracking by lifted multicut and per- son re-identification

    Siyu Tang, Mykhaylo Andriluka, Bjoern Andres, and Bernt Schiele. Multiple people tracking by lifted multicut and per- son re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3539– 3548, 2017. 2

    2017

  14. [22]

    Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view recon- struction

    Yiming Wang, Qin Han, Marc Habermann, Kostas Dani- ilidis, Christian Theobalt, and Lingjie Liu. Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view recon- struction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3295–3306, 2023. 3

    2023

  15. [23]

    Diffusionerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields with denoising diffu- sion models

    Jamie Wynn and Daniyar Turmukhambetov. Diffusionerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields with denoising diffu- sion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4180– 4189, 2023. 2

    2023

Pith tools

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