Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

HiNeuS: High-fidelity Neural Surface Mitigating Low-texture and Reflective Ambiguity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HiNeuS claims a single SDF-based pipeline resolves reflection ambiguity, textureless-region drift, and Eikonal detail loss, with state-of-the-art Chamfer distances and PSNR across synthetic and real-world benchmarks.

desk verdict Strong engineering story and numbers, but the visibility factor in Eq. 4 can't meet its own threshold as written, which needs to be resolved before the results mean what they say. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23854 v1 pith:AGRTHVJ4 submitted 2025-06-30 cs.CV cs.GR

Yida Wang , Xueyang Zhang , Kun Zhan , Peng Jia , Xianpeng Lang This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords neuralsurfacereconstructionsigneddistancefieldmulti-viewconsistencyreflectionambiguitytexturelessregionsEikonalregularizationrenderinginverse
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

HiNeuS is a neural surface reconstruction method that claims one training pipeline can fix three failure modes at once: reflections that break multi-view color agreement, textureless regions with almost no visual keypoints, and Eikonal smoothness penalties that sand away fine detail. The paper's central assertion is that a signed distance field (SDF) can carry all three fixes: a visibility product computed along camera rays selects which views are trustworthy for a surface point, ray-aligned planar constraints regularize low-texture areas while an appearance-based weight protects edges, and the Eikonal constraint is modulated by rendering error so geometry is allowed to sharpen where the render is still wrong. If the method works as reported, its benchmark numbers follow: average Chamfer distance of 0.43 mm on DTU, 35.00 dB PSNR on NeRF-Synthetic, and a 21.4% Chamfer-distance reduction over Ref-NeuS on specular objects. The deeper claim is that appearance and geometry constraints should evolve together during training instead of being combined as separate post-hoc losses.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SDF visibility factor $V_j = \prod_{k=1}^{K} \sigma(\beta f(x_k))$, a product of sigmoid evaluations of the signed distance field along the ray from an auxiliary camera to a surface point, interpreted as the probability that the point is visible from that view. The same SDF supplies normals for reflected-ray tracing, the zero-crossing surface itself, and the gradient used in the planar-conformal constraint. This factor converts a hard occlusion test into a continuous, differentiable occlusion score, and its threshold $V_j > 0.9$ decides which views enter the multi-view consistency term; the paper's reflection handling, low-texture regularization, and detail preservation all hang off this one signed-distance object.

What would settle it

Take a synthetic scene with a known thin occluder between two cameras and a target surface point. Trace the ray described in Algorithm 1, record the SDF values at every sampled point, and evaluate the product $V_j$ against the 0.9 threshold. If a sample lands at or very near the zero crossing, the sigmoid factor is about 0.5 and the product cannot exceed 0.5, so the view is classified hidden even when it is geometrically visible; repeating the same evaluation with the surface point explicitly excluded from the sample set would show whether the visibility term is a calibrated probability or an artifact of sampling choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the three known failure modes of SDF-based neural surface reconstruction are not independent, and that a single SDF can resolve all of them if the right quantities are read off it. In the paper's terms, the core discovery is that the same continuous signed distance function can serve as the surface representation, as an occlusion culler for photometric supervision, and as the carrier for adaptive geometric regularization. The visibility factor $V_j = \prod_{k=1}^{K} \sigma(\beta f(x_k))$ multiplies sigmoid evaluations of the SDF along the ray from another camera to the surface point, so views blocked by intervening geometry contribute less to the color loss; the planar loss forces the SDF to be locally linear along ray-aligned patches in textureless areas while a feature-difference weight softens the constraint at edges; and the Eikonal weight $\omega(x)$ is lowered exactly where rendering error is high, letting high-frequency geometry survive. Trained jointly with $\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{rgb}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{planar}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{eikonal}}$, the method reports state-of-the-art Chamfer distances and PSNR across the tested synthetic and real-world benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a product of smooth on/off factors evaluated at sampled points along a camera ray genuinely measures whether a surface point is visible, and that the 0.9 cutoff cleanly separates visible from hidden views; this premise can fail if the surface point being tested lies exactly at the SDF zero crossing, where the on/off factor is 0.5.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reflective surfaces can be reconstructed without explicit per-surface material modeling: the SDF visibility factor decides which views enter photometric supervision, and reflected rays are traced through the same SDF to compensate indirect radiance.
  • Textureless regions can be regularized locally without a global smoothness penalty, because the planar loss is applied along ray-aligned patches and is softened by appearance differences at edges.
  • High-frequency details are no longer unconditionally sacrificed to the Eikonal constraint; where rendering error is high the constraint weight is lowered, allowing geometry to change to reduce that error.
  • The same training run can deliver both the best rendering PSNR and the best surface Chamfer distance on the tested benchmarks, since appearance and geometry losses are coupled rather than stacked.
  • The reconstructed surfaces can be reused for downstream inverse rendering, including material decomposition and relighting, because geometry and appearance are learned jointly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference — a direct test the paper does not run: vary $\beta$ and sample count $K$ in Eq. (4) on scenes with thin occluders; if the 0.9 threshold's behavior changes qualitatively, the visibility term is better described as a smooth occlusion heuristic than a calibrated probability.
  • Editorial inference — the rendering error $\|C(x)-\hat C(x)\|^2$ used in Eq. (12) is naturally defined per ray, not per surface point, so its use as a spatial weight assumes some ray-to-point assignment; if that assignment is coarse, the Eikonal relaxation may be driven by nearby rather than local error.
  • Editorial inference — the inverse-rendering demonstrations suggest a second use for the same visibility factor: downweighting specular rays during BRDF estimation could make material decomposition more robust, a property the geometry-only benchmarks do not directly measure.
  • Editorial inference — the 2.32 dB PSNR gain over 3D Gaussian Splatting is a rendering metric; geometric quality against the same scenes is not reported, so a direct surface-accuracy comparison with that baseline remains open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. HiNeuS proposes a unified neural surface reconstruction framework that combines SDF-guided visibility verification for reflective scenes, ray-aligned planar regularization for textureless regions, and rendering-error-weighted Eikonal relaxation for detail preservation. The method is evaluated on NeRF-Synthetic, GlossySynthetic, Mip-NeRF 360, and DTU, reporting state-of-the-art PSNR and Chamfer distance numbers, with ablations for each component. The central claim is that the three components jointly resolve multi-view radiance inconsistency, textureless-surface ambiguity, and detail erosion, outperforming prior reflection-aware and high-fidelity baselines.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper would represent a meaningful step forward in neural surface reconstruction, particularly for reflective and textureless scenes, and the component ablations are a useful contribution. The work is also notable for integrating visibility reasoning, local geometric regularization, and adaptive Eikonal weighting in a single optimization, rather than as separate post-processing stages. The paper ships extensive benchmark comparisons and ablation tables that are internally consistent, and no evidence of metric manipulation is apparent. However, the central visibility mechanism is currently underspecified in a way that may make it inoperative as written, and the per-point rendering error used in the Eikonal relaxation is not formally defined.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (12)] The load-bearing visibility mechanism in Eq. (4) is underspecified to the point of internal inconsistency. With K=64, beta=100, and uniform samples in (0, ||x_i^0 - o_j||), the closest sampled point to the surface zero crossing is expected to be about D/(K+1) from f=0; for an object-camera distance D on the order of 1 this gives sigma(beta f) approximately 0.82 for that point, and every other factor in the product is less than 1, so V_j cannot reach the threshold 0.9 even for an unoccluded ray. The paper does not state that the surface endpoint is excluded, that an epsilon offset is applied, or that beta is annealed; if no view satisfies V_j>0.9, then V_v is empty and lambda_ambiguity in Eq. (3) is undefined, making the weighting in Eq. (6) and Eq. (9) inactive. This directly affects the reported ablation gains attributed to SDF visibility (-15.8% CD in Table 2, -1.42 dB in Table 3), so the product formulation and threshold must be reconciled with the implementation.
  2. [Section 3.5, Eq. (12)] Eq. (12) defines omega(x) through ||C(x) - hat C(x)||^2, but rendering error is only defined for a ray after volume rendering in Eq. (1); no per-point color C(x) is introduced anywhere in the paper. In addition, the planarity factor lambda_pla(x) used in Eq. (12) is not connected to the discrete weights lambda_k^pla defined in Section 3.4. Please define these quantities as functions of 3D position, or state how ray-level errors are assigned to points; without this, the Eikonal relaxation in Eq. (13) cannot be implemented as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 1, Section 5, Table 2] The text repeatedly claims a 21.4% Chamfer distance reduction over Ref-NeuS on GlossySynthetic, but the rounded table values (0.0038 vs 0.0048 mm) correspond to about 20.8%; please reconcile the claim with the reported precision.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 3.5] The term 'planar-conformal regularization' is not defined; Eq. (10) enforces local SDF linearity, which is a planarity constraint but not a conformal map. Consider using a more precise name or defining the conformal sense.
  3. [Section 3.5, property (i)] The text states that omega is proportional to 1/||C - hat C||, but Eq. (12) uses an exponential decay, not an inverse relationship; this descriptive sentence should be corrected to match the equation.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Figure 1] Section 3.4 refers to Figure 1 as an overview of the framework, but Figure 1 is a qualitative comparison image; there is no actual framework diagram, which makes the method harder to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HiNeuS trains against external images with standard losses; the one self-citation (RaNeuS) is a baseline, not load-bearing.

full rationale

HiNeuS's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the SDF f is optimized with photometric loss L_rgb, planar loss L_planar, and Eikonal loss L_eikonal (Eqs. 6, 10, 13-14), all evaluated on training images from Mip-NeRF, NeRF-Synthetic, and DTU. The claimed contributions—visibility factor V_j (Eq. 4), ambiguity factor λ_ambiguity (Eq. 3), self-reflection compensation S(r) (Eq. 7), adaptive planarity weight λ_k_pla (Eq. 11), and rendering-prioritized Eikonal weight ω(x) (Eq. 12)—are training-time weightings and regularizers, not quantities fitted to the reported benchmark metrics. No equation reduces to its own input by construction: V_j is a sigmoid product over SDF samples, λ_ambiguity averages Mahalanobis color distances over views passing a threshold, and ω(x) multiplies a planarity term by an exponential rendering error. The reported state-of-the-art numbers are measured outcomes on test views and reconstructed geometry, not outputs of a fitted formula. The only self-citation is RaNeuS [26] (first author Yida Wang), and it appears solely as a comparative baseline in Tables 1, 3, and 4 and in related-work discussion; no load-bearing claim—such as the visibility or Eikonal mechanism—is justified by that citation. The limitation paragraph ('still struggles with occluded structures in limited-view training and deformable scenes') is an honest scope statement, not a circular argument. The potential internal inconsistency in Eq. 4 (V_j > 0.9 with β=100 and endpoint f=0) is an implementation and reproducibility concern about whether the stated threshold can ever fire, but it is not circularity: it does not make the reported improvement equivalent to the method's inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on standard volume rendering and SDF-to-density conversion, plus three paper-specific assumptions: visibility as a product of sigmoids, single-bounce reflection within t_max=0.1, and Mahalanobis distance as a photometric inconsistency measure. Six hyperparameters are hand-set; only some have ablations in Table 5.

free parameters (6)
  • beta = 100
    Sharpness of sigmoid in visibility factor V_j (Eq. 4). Controls whether V_j is near 0 or 1; no sensitivity analysis reported for beta in Table 5.
  • gamma = 5.0
    Error sensitivity in Eikonal relaxation (Eq. 12). Ablated in Table 5 (gamma=3.0 under-constrains, gamma=10.0 over-smooths).
  • t_max = 0.1
    Maximum reflected ray marching distance in self-reflection probability (Eq. 7). Ablated in Table 5; chosen to balance multi-bounce modeling.
  • clip_threshold = 0.2
    Clipping on ||C-C_hat|| in Eq. 12. Ablated in Table 5; values below 0.2 destabilize training.
  • lambda_pla_schedule = 0.1 to 1.0 over 100k steps
    Annealing of planar regularization weight. Chosen by hand; no ablation shown.
  • eta = not specified
    Local sampling radius for planar neighborhood points in Eq. 10. Not specified in implementation details.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Volume rendering integrates radiance along a ray (Eq. 1).
    Standard NeRF volume rendering equation used as the rendering model.
  • domain assumption SDF can be converted to density via a Laplace CDF (Eq. 2).
    Inherited from VolSDF/NeuS; assumes sigmoid-shaped density around the zero level set.
  • ad hoc to paper The product of sigmoid(beta f(x_k)) along a camera ray approximates visibility, with V_j>0.9 treated as visible (Eq. 4 and Algorithm 1).
    This is a new modeling assumption that equates SDF sign along sampled points with occlusion; the threshold and endpoint handling are not justified.
  • ad hoc to paper Indirect reflection can be modeled as a single secondary ray with probability S(r) = max Laplace CDF along the reflected ray and t_max=0.1 (Eq. 7).
    Assumes one bounce dominates and that the reflected ray can be truncated at 0.1 length.
  • domain assumption Photometric inconsistency between views is quantified by Mahalanobis distance in RGB space and averaged over visible views (Eq. 3).
    Assumes color differences under reflection are Gaussian-distributed in RGB space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HiNeuS: High-fidelity Neural Surface Mitigating Low-texture and Reflective Ambiguity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGRTHVJ4

@misc{pith2026250623854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HiNeuS: High-fidelity Neural Surface Mitigating Low-texture and Reflective Ambiguity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGRTHVJ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23854}
}
read the original abstract

Neural surface reconstruction faces persistent challenges in reconciling geometric fidelity with photometric consistency under complex scene conditions. We present HiNeuS, a unified framework that holistically addresses three core limitations in existing approaches: multi-view radiance inconsistency, missing keypoints in textureless regions, and structural degradation from over-enforced Eikonal constraints during joint optimization. To resolve these issues through a unified pipeline, we introduce: 1) Differential visibility verification through SDF-guided ray tracing, resolving reflection ambiguities via continuous occlusion modeling; 2) Planar-conformal regularization via ray-aligned geometry patches that enforce local surface coherence while preserving sharp edges through adaptive appearance weighting; and 3) Physically-grounded Eikonal relaxation that dynamically modulates geometric constraints based on local radiance gradients, enabling detail preservation without sacrificing global regularity. Unlike prior methods that handle these aspects through sequential optimizations or isolated modules, our approach achieves cohesive integration where appearance-geometry constraints evolve synergistically throughout training. Comprehensive evaluations across synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, including a 21.4% reduction in Chamfer distance over reflection-aware baselines and 2.32 dB PSNR improvement against neural rendering counterparts. Qualitative analyses reveal superior capability in recovering specular instruments, urban layouts with centimeter-scale infrastructure, and low-textured surfaces without local patch collapse. The method's generalizability is further validated through successful application to inverse rendering tasks, including material decomposition and view-consistent relighting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structural comparison among approaches targeting learning neural surfaces towards a set of drums. Our proposed method delivers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Occlusion-aware reflection handling. Our SDF-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Self-reflection handling comparison: (a) RefNeuS [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Adaptive weights ω(x) with rendering error (x-axis) and planarity factor λpla (y-axis). Purple/green regions indicate strong/weak regularization respectively. (d) NeRO 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝜆!"# (a) Ref-NeuS (b) Ref-NeuS 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝜆!"# (c) NeRO 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Adaptive Eikonal relaxation preserves thin structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Our trained model renders the static layout in (b), disregarding the specular and dynamic visual cues such as moving vehicles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Learning BRDF, HDR with HiNeuS mesh and relight. Relighting. Our method effectively reduces lighting am￾biguity through accurate surface geometry modeling and BRDF decomposition. By reconstructing plausible surface normals and material properties, the framework dynami￾…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5855–5864,

  2. [2]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5470–5479, 2022. 7

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Recovering fine details for neural implicit surface reconstruction

    Decai Chen, Peng Zhang, Ingo Feldmann, Oliver Schreer, and Peter Eisert. Recovering fine details for neural implicit surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 4330–4339, 2023. 8

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Improving neural im- plicit surfaces geometry with patch warping

    Franc ¸ois Darmon, B´en´edicte Bascle, Jean-Cl ´ement Devaux, Pascal Monasse, and Mathieu Aubry. Improving neural im- plicit surfaces geometry with patch warping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 6260–6269, 2022. 3, 8

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Geo-neus: Geometry-consistent neural implicit surfaces learning for multi-view reconstruction

    Qiancheng Fu, Qingshan Xu, Yew Soon Ong, and Wenbing Tao. Geo-neus: Geometry-consistent neural implicit surfaces learning for multi-view reconstruction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3403–3416, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Ref-neus: Ambiguity-reduced neural implicit surface learning for multi-view reconstruction with reflection

    Wenhang Ge, Tao Hu, Haoyu Zhao, Shu Liu, and Ying-Cong Chen. Ref-neus: Ambiguity-reduced neural implicit surface learning for multi-view reconstruction with reflection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4251–4260, 2023. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learn- ing shapes

    Amos Gropp, Lior Yariv, Niv Haim, Matan Atzmon, and Yaron Lipman. Implicit geometric regularization for learn- ing shapes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10099 , 2020. 2, 3, 5

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering

    Peter Hedman, Julien Philip, True Price, Jan-Michael Frahm, George Drettakis, and Gabriel Brostow. Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(6):1–15, 2018. 7

    work page 2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Kinectfusion: real-time 3d reconstruction and inter- action using a moving depth camera

    Shahram Izadi, David Kim, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, Richard Newcombe, Pushmeet Kohli, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, Dustin Freeman, Andrew Davison, et al. Kinectfusion: real-time 3d reconstruction and inter- action using a moving depth camera. In Proceedings of the 24th ...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Large scale multi-view stereopsis eval- uation

    Rasmus Jensen, Anders Dahl, George V ogiatzis, Engin Tola, and Henrik Aanæs. Large scale multi-view stereopsis eval- uation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 406–413, 2014. 5, 8

    2014

  3. [11]

    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 Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4), 2023. 5, 6

    2023

  4. [12]

    Point-based neural rendering with per- view optimization

    Georgios Kopanas, Julien Philip, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. Point-based neural rendering with per- view optimization. In Computer Graphics Forum, pages 29–

  5. [13]

    Nerfacc: Efficient sampling accelerates nerfs

    Ruilong Li, Hang Gao, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfacc: Efficient sampling accelerates nerfs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04966, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction

    Zhaoshuo Li, Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Russell H Tay- lor, Mathias Unberath, Ming-Yu Liu, and Chen-Hsuan Lin. Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 8456–8465, ...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Nero: Neural geometry and brdf reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images

    Yuan Liu, Peng Wang, Cheng Lin, Xiaoxiao Long, Jiepeng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Nero: Neural geometry and brdf reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images. In SIGGRAPH, 2023. 2, 4, 6

    2023

  8. [16]

    Neuraludf: Learning unsigned distance fields for multi-view reconstruction of surfaces with arbitrary topolo- gies

    Xiaoxiao Long, Cheng Lin, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Peng Wang, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neuraludf: Learning unsigned distance fields for multi-view reconstruction of surfaces with arbitrary topolo- gies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14173, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sparseneus: Fast generalizable neural sur- face reconstruction from sparse views

    Xiaoxiao Long, Cheng Lin, Peng Wang, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Sparseneus: Fast generalizable neural sur- face reconstruction from sparse views. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XXXII, pages 210–

    2022

  10. [18]

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

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2021

  11. [19]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2, 5, 8

    2022

  12. [20]

    Extracting Triangular 3D Models, Materials, and Light- ing From Images

    Jacob Munkberg, Jon Hasselgren, Tianchang Shen, Jun Gao, Wenzheng Chen, Alex Evans, Thomas M¨uller, and Sanja Fi- dler. Extracting Triangular 3D Models, Materials, and Light- ing From Images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 2

    2016

  14. [22]

    Pixelwise view selection for un- structured multi-view stereo

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Marc Pollefeys, and Jan-Michael Frahm. Pixelwise view selection for un- structured multi-view stereo. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2016. 2, 8

    2016

  15. [23]

    Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689, 2021. 2, 6, 8

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hf-neus: Improved surface reconstruction using high-frequency details

    Yiqun Wang, Ivan Skorokhodov, Ivan Skorokhodov, and Pe- ter Wonka. Hf-neus: Improved surface reconstruction using high-frequency details. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 35:1966–1978, 2022. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

    1966

  17. [25]

    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. 2, 5, 8

    2023

  18. [26]

    Raneus: Ray-adaptive neural surface reconstruc- tion

    Yida Wang, David Joseph Tan, Nassir Navab, and Federico Tombari. Raneus: Ray-adaptive neural surface reconstruc- tion. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 53–63. IEEE, 2024. 6, 7, 8

    2024

  19. [27]

    Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance

    Lior Yariv, Yoni Kasten, Dror Moran, Meirav Galun, Matan Atzmon, Basri Ronen, and Yaron Lipman. Multiview neu- ral surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and ap- pearance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 33:2492–2502, 2020. 8

    2020

  20. [28]

    V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 34:4805–4815, 2021. 2, 3, 6, 8

    2021

  21. [29]

    Learning signed distance field for multi-view surface reconstruction

    Jingyang Zhang, Yao Yao, and Long Quan. Learning signed distance field for multi-view surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6525–6534, 2021. 8

    2021

  22. [30]

    Critical regu- larizations for neural surface reconstruction in the wild

    Jingyang Zhang, Yao Yao, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, David McKinnon, Yanghai Tsin, and Long Quan. Critical regu- larizations for neural surface reconstruction in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6270–6279, 2022. 8

    2022

  23. [31]

    Nerf++: Analyzing and improving neural radiance fields

    Kai Zhang, Gernot Riegler, Noah Snavely, and Vladlen Koltun. Nerf++: Analyzing and improving neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07492, 2020. 2, 7

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Human performance modeling and ren- dering via neural animated mesh

    Fuqiang Zhao, Yuheng Jiang, Kaixin Yao, Jiakai Zhang, Liao Wang, Haizhao Dai, Yuhui Zhong, Yingliang Zhang, Minye Wu, Lan Xu, et al. Human performance modeling and ren- dering via neural animated mesh. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(6):1–17, 2022. 3, 6 HiNeuS: High-fid...

    2022

  25. [34]

    The default configura- tion achieves optimal performance with 0.0038mm Cham- fer distance (CD) and 2.7° normal error at 8 hours train- ing time

    Efficiency ablation Hyperparameter Analysis Table 5 quantitatively eval- uates our method’s sensitivity to key hyperparameters on the GlossySynthetic benchmark. The default configura- tion achieves optimal performance with 0.0038mm Cham- fer distance (CD) and 2.7° normal error...

  26. [35]

    9, we showcase four distinct real vehicles through 3D Gaussian Splatting initialized on the reconstructed HiNeuS surfaces

    Textured 3D Asset Modeling As demonstrated in Fig. 9, we showcase four distinct real vehicles through 3D Gaussian Splatting initialized on the reconstructed HiNeuS surfaces. Each subfigure (a)-(d) dis- plays all four vehicles in identical poses to illustrate geom- etry preserv...

  27. [36]

    Future Works While HiNeuS advances neural surface reconstruction, sev- eral promising directions remain open. Enhancing recon- struction quality for occluded regions in limited-view sce- narios could integrate uncertainty-aware radiance fields that explicitly model unobserved ...

  28. [43]

    Wiley Online Library, 2021. 7

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.