Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Sparse Voxels Rasterization: Real-time High-fidelity Radiance Field Rendering

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By rasterizing adaptive sparse voxels with direction-dependent Morton ordering, a radiance field renders in real time with quality comparable to 3D Gaussian splatting and without Gaussian-style popping artifacts.

desk verdict Strong, well-executed sparse-voxel rasterization paper whose empirical claims are credible, but the popping-free guarantee rests on a proof that silently assumes a particular entry face and is not general. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04459 v3 pith:5J2IBNJH submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CV cs.GR

Cheng Sun , Jaesung Choe , Charles Loop , Wei-Chiu Ma , Yu-Chiang Frank Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords sparsevoxelsradiancefieldsrasterizationMortonorderingnovelviewsynthesisreal-timerenderingvolumepoppingartifacts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a radiance field can be rendered in real time by rasterizing explicitly stored sparse voxels, with no neural network, no 3D Gaussian primitive, and no structure-from-motion point prior. The authors claim their system beats the previous fully explicit voxel model, Plenoxels, by more than 4 dB PSNR and more than ten times the frame rate, while matching 3D Gaussian splatting in quality on standard benchmarks. The load-bearing idea is that the correct front-to-back order for voxels of mixed sizes depends only on the signs of the ray direction, so eight fixed Morton-order permutations sort an entire image tile without per-ray sorting. If the claim holds, voxel grids become a practical real-time primitive that inherits the well-defined volume and ordering properties that Gaussian splatting lacks.

What carries the argument

The direction-dependent Morton ordering: each voxel's octree Morton code, from bit-interleaving its grid index, is remapped through one of eight hard-coded bit permutations chosen by the three sign bits of the ray direction, so that a single 48-bit sort key orders a whole tile's voxels near-to-far. The argument is by induction on octree level: in the base case the most significant bit separates the near half-space along each axis in turn, and subdividing a voxel appends the same base-case order inside its children, so mixed-level voxel sets stay correctly ordered after pruning and subdivision. The surrounding system is adaptive sparse-voxel optimization: initialization from constant empty space, pruning by maximum blending weight, subdivision guided by alpha-weighted loss gradients, corner-shared trilinear densities activated by exponential-linear, and per-voxel spherical-harmonic colors shared across all covered pixels.

What would settle it

Render a mixed-level voxel scene from a camera above or inside the foreground octree and compare against a reference image computed by z-sorting the actual voxel intersections per ray; any pixel whose compositing order differs from the reference contradicts the origin-independence claim. A cheaper analytic check enumerates rays entering the root through the −y and −z faces and compares the first octant they hit against the order the eight sign-based permutations imply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a radiance field stored in adaptive explicit sparse voxels can be rasterized at interactive frame rates with quality on par with 3D Gaussian splatting while removing the popping artifacts caused by approximate Gaussian depth sorting. Scenes are represented by octree-layout leaf voxels up to level 16, a finest grid resolution of $65536^3$; each voxel carries a trilinear density field whose corner values are shared with neighbors and a spherical-harmonic color held constant inside the voxel. Rendering projects voxels to image tiles and sorts each tile's voxels by a direction-dependent Morton code, eight fixed permutations of the octree Morton bits selected by the sign pattern of the ray direction, which the authors prove by induction gives near-to-far order for voxels of mixed levels. Because space is partitioned into disjoint voxels and the order is exact, the paper states the rendering is free from popping artifacts. Against the previous fully explicit voxel model it reports over 4 dB higher PSNR and more than ten times the frame rate, and on the Mip-NeRF360 benchmark it reaches 121 FPS with PSNR 27.33, SSIM 0.822, and LPIPS 0.185, using no neural network, no Gaussians, and no SfM points.

Load-bearing premise

The popping-free guarantee rests on a proof that assumes rays enter the scene's root octree through one specific face; for cameras placed around or inside the scene, the front-to-back order can depend on where the ray enters, and that case is not covered by the proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fully explicit voxels render 121 FPS on Mip-NeRF360 with LPIPS 0.185, better than 3DGS's 0.216 on the same benchmark, while using no COLMAP sparse-point prior.
  • The same trained voxels plug directly into Volume Fusion, Voxel Pooling, and Marching Cubes, so mesh extraction and lifting 2D features to 3D need no conversion step.
  • Mesh reconstruction from the density field alone reaches DTU chamfer distance 0.76 with 5-minute training, competitive with surface-specialized NeRF variants that use SDF parametrization.
  • The two speed variants span a practical trade-off frontier: about 258 FPS at a modest quality loss, and about 4.5-minute training at full render speed.
  • Ordering correctness holds for all mixed-level voxel configurations, so fly-through rendering avoids the popping artifacts that center-sorted Gaussian splatting produces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The induction proof in the supplement covers rays entering the root octree through one face; for cameras inside or beside the scene, correct front-to-back order can depend on the entry point, so the popping-free guarantee is not yet established for all viewpoints the method is used from.
  • The paper itself concedes that the exact ordering barely changes average numerical scores, so the practical payoff is in fly-through video consistency, a dimension the benchmark tables do not measure.
  • The direction-dependent Morton scheme transfers to any octree-partitioned set of primitives, suggesting it is a general cure for center-sorting artifacts rather than a voxel-specific trick.
  • A concrete next test is initializing voxels from sensor depth through the paper's sparse-voxel TSDF-Fusion (which the authors point to as future work), replacing empty-space initialization and potentially closing the remaining geometry gap on surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SVRaster, a radiance field representation based on adaptive sparse voxels with trilinear density fields, SH-based view-dependent colors, and a custom CUDA rasterizer that sorts voxels per image tile using a direction-dependent Morton ordering. The authors claim that this ordering guarantees correct depth-sorted rendering and therefore eliminates popping artifacts, while achieving real-time frame rates and novel-view synthesis quality comparable to 3D Gaussian Splatting, all without neural networks or Gaussian primitives. The method is evaluated on Mip-NeRF360, Tanks&Temples, Deep Blending, DTU, and ScanNet++, with extensive ablations, a fast-training and a fast-rendering variant, and demonstrations of TSDF fusion and marching cubes on the same voxel grid. Code is publicly released.

Significance. If the correctness claims hold, this is a significant contribution: it shows that a fully explicit voxel representation, with no neural components and no sparse-point prior, can reach a quality-speed trade-off competitive with 3DGS while inheriting the well-defined volume and ordering properties of grids. The experimental work is thorough: per-scene breakdowns, ablations over most hyperparameters, memory and model-size comparisons, a ScanNet++ third-party benchmark evaluation, and released code that supports reproducibility. The demonstrated compatibility with classic grid algorithms (volume fusion, voxel pooling, marching cubes) is a genuine strength that opens practical extensions. The main reservation concerns the proof of the artifact-free ordering claim, which is central to the paper's headline contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1.2 / Appendix B.3] The ordering claim that the correct Morton-order permutation is solely a function of the ray direction signs and not of the ray origin is not established by the given proof. The base case in B.3 (Fig. 10) orders the four x-low octants before the four x-high octants for a (+,+,+) ray, which is only valid if the ray enters the octree root through the -x face. For a perspective camera positioned around or inside the scene, a (+,+,+) ray can enter through the -y or -z face, making the true near-to-far order y-major or z-major. Even for rays entering through the -x face, the order among the x-low children is not fixed: it depends on the entry y,z coordinates and the relative slopes, since the ray can cross the y=center or z=center planes before or after x=center. Therefore no single permutation of the 48-bit Morton key can be correct for all rays that share the same sign bits, and the induction step in B.3 does not close this gap. This directly affects the headline promise of being 'free from popping artifacts' in the abstract and Section 1. Please either prove the claim under explicit restrictive assumptions (e.g., all rays enter each voxel through its -x,-y,-z faces in a prescribed order), or revise the claim to be a heuristic that is empirically validated, or extend the sort key to be entry-face-aware and duplicate voxels accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.1 / Supplementary Table 7] The supersampling scale is reported inconsistently: the main text (Sec. 4.1) states hss=1.5, while the supplementary ablation (Table 7) marks hss=1.10 as the adopted setup and its caption says 'We use hss = 1.1 for speed-quality trade-off.' Since hss directly affects the reported rendering FPS in Table 1, the inconsistency makes the main FPS numbers difficult to reproduce. Please clarify which value was actually used for the main results and align the presentation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4 / Section 4.3] The columns in Table 4 are misaligned: the 1024^3 resolution appears to have LPIPS='OOM' and the PSNR and FPS entries are shifted into the adjacent columns, making the ablation results unreadable. Please reformat the table so each resolution is aligned with its own metrics.
  2. [Section 3.1.2 / Supplementary B.1] The sentence 'We handle the corner case when multiple Morton orders are required in supplementary materials' is only partially accurate: B.1 describes how voxels are duplicated for different ray sign bits, but the entry-face dependence caused by varying ray origins within a tile is not addressed.
  3. [Section 4.3] The text contains a typo: 'Plenxoels' should be 'Plenoxels'.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Eq. (7)] The definition of vrate as the ratio vs / v_interval is dimensionally a number of pixels, but the text describes it as a 'sampling rate'; please clarify the interpretation in the surrounding paragraph.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and empirically anchored to external baselines.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from a standard alpha-compositing equation (Eq. 1) and defines its sparse voxel representation in Eqs. (2)-(6) of Sec. 3.1.1. The central rendering-order claim is not assumed in the construction of the direction-dependent Morton orders; it is stated in Sec. 3.1.2 and then argued by induction in Sec. B.3. Even though that induction contains a geometric gap for perspective rays entering through non-x faces, a flawed proof is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the near-to-far ordering target is defined independently of the Morton key by the ray-AABB intersection and Eq. (1). The objective in Eq. (9) combines externally proposed losses (SSIM, distortion [2], TV [5,11,45], per-point rgb [45]); the per-point rgb term is cited from the authors' prior DVGO work, but it is an off-the-shelf regularizer and is not fitted to the evaluation quantities, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior papers. All headline quantitative claims are benchmarked against external methods (Plenoxels, 3DGS, Mip-NeRF360, Tanks&Temples, Deep Blending, DTU), and the ScanNet++ results were submitted to a third-party held-out benchmark, which the paper explicitly notes prevents overfitting. Hyperparameters were tuned on Mip-NeRF360, which is a mild overfitting risk, but that is standard benchmark practice and does not make the reported derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard volume rendering, a chosen trilinear density model, known input camera poses, and the direction-dependent Morton order assumption. The many hand-set hyperparameters listed above are ablated in the supplement, but they are still free parameters tuned on the benchmark scenes. No new physical or geometric entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • hgeo (initial raw density) = -10
    Initializes all voxel densities to near zero before optimization (Sec. 3.2.1).
  • hlv (initial octree level) = 6
    Dense 64^3 initialization grid for bounded scenes and the foreground region of unbounded scenes (Secs. 3.2.1, 4.1).
  • hout (background shell levels) = 5
    Number of background shells for unbounded scenes; sets scene radius as 32 times the foreground cuboid (Secs. 3.2.1, 4.1).
  • hratio (background/main voxel ratio) = 2
    Target ratio of background to foreground voxels after background initialization (Sec. 3.2.1).
  • hprune (final pruning threshold) = 0.05
    Voxels with maximum blending weight below this threshold are removed; the threshold is linearly increased from 0.0001 (Secs. 3.2.2, 4.1).
  • hpercent (subdivision percentage) = 5
    The top 5 percent of voxels by subdivision priority are subdivided every 1000 iterations (Secs. 3.2.2, 4.1).
  • hrate (sampling-rate threshold) = 1
    Voxels with maximum sampling rate below 2^hrate are not subdivided, to avoid overfitting to few pixels (Sec. 3.2.2).
  • hss (supersampling scale) = 1.5 (main), 1.1 (recommended in supp)
    Renders at higher resolution then downsamples for anti-aliasing; trades FPS for quality (Secs. 3.1.2, 4.1, Supp. Table 7).
  • K (sample points per voxel ray segment) = 1 for novel-view synthesis, 3 for mesh reconstruction
    Number of quadrature points inside each voxel for alpha and depth computation (Secs. 3.1.1, 4.1).
  • Nshd (SH degree) = 3
    Degree of spherical harmonics for view-dependent voxel color (Secs. 3.1.1, 4.1, Supp. Table 8).
  • Loss weights (lambda_ssim, lambda_T, lambda_dist, lambda_R, lambda_tv) = 0.02, 0.01, 0.1, 0.01, 1e-10
    Weights for photometric and regularization losses in Eq. (9); set by hand and ablated in Supp. Tables 13-17.
  • L (maximum octree level) = 16
    Sets finest grid resolution to 65536^3; chosen as implementation convenience for 48-bit Morton codes (Sec. 3.1.1, Supp. A.1).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Alpha compositing model (Eq. 1): pixel color is the weighted sum of voxel alpha and color along the ray.
    Standard volume rendering equation used by NeRF and 3DGS; the paper adopts it without derivation.
  • domain assumption Density field inside a voxel is trilinear in the eight corner parameters, with corners shared between adjacent voxels, and non-linearity applied after interpolation (Sec. 3.1.1).
    This modeling choice gives a continuous density field within each level and is needed for the alpha formula Eq. (4).
  • domain assumption Known camera poses and intrinsics for all training views are available (standard COLMAP input).
    The method reconstructs from multi-view images with known cameras; no bundle adjustment is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper The correct rendering order is determined only by the signs of the ray direction, not by the ray origin (Sec. 3.1.2).
    This is the load-bearing premise of the direction-dependent Morton order. The proof in Supp. Sec. B.3 only treats (+,+,+) rays and assumes entry through the -x face; it is not established for arbitrary camera positions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sparse Voxels Rasterization: Real-time High-fidelity Radiance Field Rendering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5J2IBNJH

@misc{pith2026241204459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sparse Voxels Rasterization: Real-time High-fidelity Radiance Field Rendering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5J2IBNJH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04459}
}
abstract

We propose an efficient radiance field rendering algorithm that incorporates a rasterization process on adaptive sparse voxels without neural networks or 3D Gaussians. There are two key contributions coupled with the proposed system. The first is to adaptively and explicitly allocate sparse voxels to different levels of detail within scenes, faithfully reproducing scene details with $65536^3$ grid resolution while achieving high rendering frame rates. Second, we customize a rasterizer for efficient adaptive sparse voxels rendering. We render voxels in the correct depth order by using ray direction-dependent Morton ordering, which avoids the well-known popping artifact found in Gaussian splatting. Our method improves the previous neural-free voxel model by over 4db PSNR and more than 10x FPS speedup, achieving state-of-the-art comparable novel-view synthesis results. Additionally, our voxel representation is seamlessly compatible with grid-based 3D processing techniques such as Volume Fusion, Voxel Pooling, and Marching Cubes, enabling a wide range of future extensions and applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04459 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose SVRaster, a novel framework for multi-view reconstruction and novel view synthesis. (a) Sparse voxel represen￾tation effectively captures the volume density and radiance field of the scene, without the need for neural networks, 3D Gaussians, and sparse-points prior. (b) Using our customized sparse voxel rasterizer, we can learn the underlying 3D scene efficiently and achieve state-of￾the-art performance i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sparse voxels scene representation. (Left) We allocate voxel under an Octree layout. Each voxels has its own Spherical Harmonic coefficient for view-dependent appearance. The color field is approximated as a constant inside a voxel when render￾ing a view for efficiency. The density field is trilienarly varied inside a voxel and is modeled by the density values on the corner grid points (i.e., the black dots •) of ea… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rasterization procedure. Refer to Sec. 3.1.2 for details. integration for volume rendering as in NeRF [30, 32]: α = 1−exp − l K X K k=1 explin (interp (vgeo, qk))! , (4) where l is the ray segment length, qk is the local voxel co￾ordinate of the k-th sample point, and interp(·) indicates trilinear interpolation. Voxel view-dependent color from SHs. To model view￾dependent scene appearance, we use Nshd degree SH. For… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of voxel sampling rate and grid lay￾out initialization. (a) We visualize the voxel sampling rate de￾fined in Eq. (7). (b) We depict the foreground main region and the background region under different shell levels. In unbounded scenes, we apply different …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A qualitative comparison with 3DGS [20]. Our result here corresponding to the base version in Tab. 1. We achieve sim￾ilar visual quality comparing to 3DGS. Note that 3DGS use the coarse geometry from SfM while we do not rely on this prior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the reconstructed surface. We show the rendering images, normal maps, and the final meshes on Tanks&Temples and DTU datasets. Note that we only model the scene with density field and do not use the coarse geometry prior from SfM sparse points in this w…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Failuare case. On scenes with severe exposure variation of training views, our method struggles and produces clear bound￾ary of different brightnesses and allocates many floaters. 3DGS on the other hand is less sensitive to photometric variation of GT. This explains ou…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Activation functions. We use exponential-linear acti￾vation to softly map raw density to non-negative volume density. Exp-lin activation is about two times faster to compute in CUDA, which is 21.5M operations per second in a CUDA thread compar￾ing to 11.8M of Softplus.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Base case. Direction-dependent Morton order for (+, +, +) ray direction signs under the base case with 1 Octree level. The three bits from left to right is for the x, y, and z direc￾tions respectively. The rendering order is correct for all rays going toward (+, +, +)…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative novel-view rendering results on-par with 3DGS. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative novel-view rendering results on-par with 3DGS. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative results of the reconstructed mesh. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. RORA: Realistic Object Reconstruction with Articulation

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RORA reconstructs articulated objects from a single static video by combining 3D Gaussian Splatting, convex decomposition, and human-in-the-loop joint suggestion, exporting URDF assets that run in standard robot simulators.

  2. WarpRF: Multi-View Consistency for Training-Free Uncertainty Quantification and Applications in Radiance Fields

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WarpRF shows that multi-view consistency, computed by warping a radiance field's own rendered depths and images, is a competitive training-free uncertainty signal for radiance fields.

  3. Open-Vocabulary Indoor Object Grounding with 3D Hierarchical Scene Graph

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    OVIGo-3DHSG builds a five-level scene graph (building, floor, room, location, object) and uses LLM reasoning over relevant subgraphs to ground open-vocabulary objects in multi-floor indoor scenes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 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 neu- ral radiance fields. In ICCV, 2021. 7

    2021

  2. [2]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In CVPR, 2022. 6, 7, 16, 18, 19, 20

    work page 2022

  3. [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 ICCV, 2023. 2, 7, 19

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Chan, Connor Z

    Eric R. Chan, Connor Z. Lin, Matthew A. Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas J. Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Efficient geometry- aware 3d generative adversarial networks. In CVPR, 2022. 1, 2

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In ECCV, 2022. 1, 2, 17, 19

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks

    Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio Savarese. 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. In CVPR, 2019. 2, 8

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    A volumetric method for building complex models from range images

    Brian Curless and Marc Levoy. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. ACM TOG,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Bundlefusion: Real-time globally consistent 3d reconstruction using on-the-fly surface re-integration

    Angela Dai, Matthias Nießner, Michael Zoll ¨ofer, Shahram Izadi, and Christian Theobalt. Bundlefusion: Real-time globally consistent 3d reconstruction using on-the-fly surface re-integration. ACM TOG, 2017. 1, 2, 6, 8

    work page 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free. In CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    Daniel Duckworth, Peter Hedman, Christian Reiser, Pe- ter Zhizhin, Jean-Franc ¸ois Thibert, Mario Lucic, Richard Szeliski, and Jonathan T. Barron. SMERF: streamable mem- ory efficient radiance fields for real-time large-scene explo- ration. ACM TOG, 2024. 2

    2024

  3. [11]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In CVPR, 2022. 2, 7, 8, 17

    2022

  4. [12]

    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. In NeurIPS, 2022. 2

    2022

  5. [13]

    Sub- manifold sparse convolutional networks

    Benjamin Graham and Laurens Van der Maaten. Sub- manifold sparse convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.01307, 2017. 2, 8

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruc- tion and high-quality mesh rendering

    Antoine Gu ´edon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface- aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruc- tion and high-quality mesh rendering. In CVPR, 2024. 2, 8

    2024

  7. [15]

    Peter Hedman, Julien Philip, True Price, Jan-Michael Frahm, George Drettakis, and Gabriel J. Brostow. Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering. ACM TOG, 2018. 7, 8, 20

    2018

  8. [16]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields. ACM TOG, 2024. 2, 6, 8

    2024

  9. [17]

    Large scale multi- view stereopsis evaluation

    Rasmus Ramsbøl Jensen, Anders Lindbjerg Dahl, George V ogiatzis, Engin Tola, and Henrik Aanæs. Large scale multi- view stereopsis evaluation. In CVPR, 2014. 8, 16, 18, 19, 21

    2014

  10. [18]

    Animesh Karnewar, Tobias Ritschel, Oliver Wang, and Niloy J. Mitra. Relu fields: The little non-linearity that could. In ACM TOG, 2022. 3, 7, 12

    2022

  11. [19]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. In SGP, 2006. 2, 8

    2006

  12. [20]

    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 TOG, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19, 20

    2023

  13. [21]

    Tanks and temples: benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM TOG, 2017. 7, 8, 16, 18, 20, 21

    2017

  14. [22]

    Efficient sparse voxel octrees

    Samuli Laine and Tero Karras. Efficient sparse voxel octrees. In ACM I3D, 2010. 2

    2010

  15. [23]

    Nerfacc: Efficient sampling accelerates nerfs

    Ruilong Li, Hang Gao, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfacc: Efficient sampling accelerates nerfs. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Tay- lor, Mathias Unberath, Ming-Yu Liu, and Chen-Hsuan Lin

    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 CVPR, 2023. 1, 2, 8

    2023

  17. [25]

    Neural sparse voxel fields

    Lingjie Liu, Jiatao Gu, Kyaw Zaw Lin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Christian Theobalt. Neural sparse voxel fields. In NeurIPS,

  18. [26]

    A closed-form bayesian fusion equation using occu- pancy probabilities

    Charles Loop, Qin Cai, Sergio Orts-Escolano, and Philip A Chou. A closed-form bayesian fusion equation using occu- pancy probabilities. In 3DV, 2016. 2, 8

    2016

  19. [27]

    Lorensen and Harvey E

    William E. Lorensen and Harvey E. Cline. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. InACM TOG, 1987. 6, 8

    1987

  20. [28]

    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 volumet- ric ellipsoid rendering for real-time view synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01804, 2024. 2, 19 9

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Berriel Martins and Javier Civera

    T. Berriel Martins and Javier Civera. Feature splatting for better novel view synthesis with low overlap. In BMVC,

  22. [30]

    Nelson L. Max. Optical models for direct volume rendering. IEEE TVCG, 1995. 4, 13

    1995

  23. [31]

    Grimshaw

    Duane Merrill and Andrew S. Grimshaw. Revisiting sorting for GPGPU stream architectures. In ACM PACT, 2010. 14

    2010

  24. [32]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    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. In ECCV, 2020. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 18, 19, 20

    2020

  25. [33]

    3d gaussian ray trac- ing: Fast tracing of particle scenes

    Nicolas Moenne-Loccoz, Ashkan Mirzaei, Or Perel, Ric- cardo de Lutio, Janick Martinez Esturo, Gavriel State, Sanja Fidler, Nicholas Sharp, and Zan Gojcic. 3d gaussian ray trac- ing: Fast tracing of particle scenes. ACM TOG, 2024. 2, 19

    2024

  26. [34]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding. ACM TOG, 2022. 2, 7, 19

    2022

  27. [35]

    Vdb: High-resolution sparse volumes with dy- namic topology

    Ken Museth. Vdb: High-resolution sparse volumes with dy- namic topology. ACM TOG, 2013. 2

    2013

  28. [36]

    Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and track- ing

    Richard A Newcombe, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, David Kim, Andrew J Davison, Pushmeet Kohi, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, and Andrew Fitzgibbon. Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and track- ing. In IEEE ISMAR, 2011. 1, 2, 8

    2011

  29. [37]

    Radsplat: Radiance field-informed gaussian splat- ting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ FPS

    Michael Niemeyer, Fabian Manhardt, Marie-Julie Rakoto- saona, Michael Oechsle, Daniel Duckworth, Rama Gosula, Keisuke Tateno, John Bates, Dominik Kaeser, and Federico Tombari. Radsplat: Radiance field-informed gaussian splat- ting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ FPS. ...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Real-time 3d reconstruction at scale us- ing voxel hashing

    Matthias Nießner, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, Shahram Izadi, and Marc Stamminger. Real-time 3d reconstruction at scale us- ing voxel hashing. ACM TOG, 2013. 2, 6, 8

    2013

  31. [39]

    Stopthepop: Sorted gaussian splatting for view-consistent real-time rendering

    Lukas Radl, Michael Steiner, Mathias Parger, Alexan- der Weinrauch, Bernhard Kerbl, and Markus Steinberger. Stopthepop: Sorted gaussian splatting for view-consistent real-time rendering. ACM TOG, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 19

    2024

  32. [40]

    Am-radio: Agglomerative vision foundation model reduce all domains into one

    Mike Ranzinger, Greg Heinrich, Jan Kautz, and Pavlo Molchanov. Am-radio: Agglomerative vision foundation model reduce all domains into one. In CVPR, 2024. 1

    2024

  33. [41]

    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 ICCV, 2021. 2

    2021

  34. [42]

    Garbin, Pratul P

    Christian Reiser, Stephan J. Garbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Richard Szeliski, Ben Mildenhall, Jonathan T. Bar- ron, Peter Hedman, and Andreas Geiger. Binary opacity grids: Capturing fine geometric detail for mesh-based view synthesis. ACM TOG, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys

    Johannes L. Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo. In ECCV, 2016. 2, 7, 19

    2016

  36. [44]

    Very deep con- volutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep con- volutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR, 2015. 7

    2015

  37. [45]

    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 CVPR, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 17, 18

    2022

  38. [46]

    Marshall, Jia-Bin Huang, Shuang Zhao, and Zhao Dong

    Cheng Sun, Guangyan Cai, Zhengqin Li, Kai Yan, Cheng Zhang, Carl S. Marshall, Jia-Bin Huang, Shuang Zhao, and Zhao Dong. Neural-pbir reconstruction of shape, material, and illumination. In ICCV, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  39. [47]

    Loop, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Alec Jacob- son, Morgan McGuire, and Sanja Fidler

    Towaki Takikawa, Joey Litalien, Kangxue Yin, Karsten Kreis, Charles T. Loop, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Alec Jacob- son, Morgan McGuire, and Sanja Fidler. Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3d shapes. In CVPR, 2021. 2

    2021

  40. [48]

    Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development

    Matthew Tancik, Ethan Weber, Evonne Ng, Ruilong Li, Brent Yi, Terrance Wang, Alexander Kristoffersen, Jake Austin, Kamyar Salahi, Abhik Ahuja, et al. Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. In SIGGRAPH, 2023. 19

    2023

  41. [49]

    Hybridnerf: Efficient neu- ral rendering via adaptive volumetric surfaces

    Haithem Turki, Vasu Agrawal, Samuel Rota Bul `o, Lorenzo Porzi, Peter Kontschieder, Deva Ramanan, Michael Zollh¨ofer, and Christian Richardt. Hybridnerf: Efficient neu- ral rendering via adaptive volumetric surfaces. In CVPR,

  42. [50]

    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. In NeurIPS, 2021. 2, 6, 8

    2021

  43. [51]

    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 ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  44. [52]

    Adaptive shells for efficient neu- ral radiance field rendering

    Zian Wang, Tianchang Shen, Merlin Nimier-David, Nicholas Sharp, Jun Gao, Alexander Keller, Sanja Fidler, Thomas M¨uller, and Zan Gojcic. Adaptive shells for efficient neu- ral radiance field rendering. ACM TOG, 2023. 2

    2023

  45. [53]

    fvdb : A deep-learning framework for sparse, large scale, and high performance spatial intelligence

    Francis Williams, Jiahui Huang, Jonathan Swartz, Gergely Kl´ar, Vijay Thakkar, Matthew Cong, Xuanchi Ren, Ruilong Li, Clement Fuji-Tsang, Sanja Fidler, Eftychios Sifakis, and Ken Museth. fvdb : A deep-learning framework for sparse, large scale, and high performance spatial int...

    2024

  46. [54]

    V oxurf: V oxel-based efficient and accurate neural surface reconstruction

    Tong Wu, Jiaqi Wang, Xingang Pan, Xudong Xu, Christian Theobalt, Ziwei Liu, and Dahua Lin. V oxurf: V oxel-based efficient and accurate neural surface reconstruction. InICLR,

  47. [55]

    ´Alvarez, and Ping Luo

    Enze Xie, Wenhai Wang, Zhiding Yu, Anima Anandkumar, Jos´e M. ´Alvarez, and Ping Luo. Segformer: Simple and ef- ficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. In NeurIPS, 2021. 1

    2021

  48. [56]

    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. InNeurIPS, 2021. 2, 6

    2021

  49. [57]

    Srinivasan, Richard Szeliski, Jonathan T

    Lior Yariv, Peter Hedman, Christian Reiser, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Richard Szeliski, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real- time view synthesis. In ACM TOG, 2023. 2

    2023

  50. [58]

    Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes

    Chandan Yeshwanth, Yueh-Cheng Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes. In ICCV, 2023. 19

    2023

  51. [59]

    Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields

    Alex Yu, Ruilong Li, Matthew Tancik, Hao Li, Ren Ng, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields. In ICCV, 2021. 2, 19 10

    2021

  52. [60]

    Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR, 2018. 7

    2018

  53. [61]

    voxel id

    Qingtian Zhu, Zizhuang Wei, Zhongtian Zheng, Yifan Zhan, Zhuyu Yao, Jiawang Zhang, Kejian Wu, and Yinqiang Zheng. Rpgb: Towards robust neural point-based graphics in the wild. In ECCV, 2024. 19 11 Sparse Voxels Rasterization: Real-time High-fidelity Radiance Field Rendering Su...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.