Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 126 references

NeRFs are Mirror Detectors: Using Structural Similarity for Multi-View Mirror Scene Reconstruction with 3D Surface Primitives

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A standard NeRF's own failures reveal where mirrors are, and that cue is enough to reconstruct mirrored scenes without user-provided masks.

desk verdict Automatic mirror detection from NeRF artifacts is a real contribution, but the paper sells the detection claim a bit harder than the evidence supports; the end-to-end results are good enough that it deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04074 v1 pith:7J5LO4MN submitted 2025-01-07 cs.CV

Leif Van Holland , Michael Weinmann , Jan U. Müller , Patrick Stotko , Reinhard Klein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords neuralradiancefieldsmirrordetectionspecularreflectionstructuralsimilaritysurfaceprimitivesjointoptimizationnovelviewsynthesisdepthconsistency
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

Neural radiance fields (NeRFs) usually break on mirrors because a mirror shows each camera a different virtual scene, so no single 3D volume can reproduce it consistently. NeRF-MD turns that failure into a detector: after a first standard-NeRF training run, pixels whose rendered color is structurally dissimilar from the photograph but whose depth estimate is confident are treated as mirror candidates. Those pixels are unprojected to a point cloud, clustered, and fit with planar 3D primitives that explicitly reflect rays in a second training stage. The paper claims this removes the need for mirror masks or other annotations while reaching image quality close to methods that are given exact mirror masks. If correct, mirror handling becomes a byproduct of ordinary NeRF training rather than a separate supervised step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-ray score $s(r)$, built from SSIM against ground truth and the variance of the expected absorption depth. Equally central are: the depth reprojection loss from sparse-view NeRF training, which makes initial geometry plausible enough for unprojection; the clustering and RANSAC-based fitting of candidate pixels into planar primitives; a differentiable antialiased mask that blends primary and reflected ray contributions; and a $p$-norm schedule ($p$ starts at 2, drops to 1, returns to 2) that keeps the optimization from falling into a no-mirror local optimum. The reflected-ray formulation follows the transmittance-aware mirror rendering of TraM-NeRF [33], extended here to be differentiable with respect to mirror parameters.

What would settle it

Capture a multi-view scene with a mirror whose reflected content lies entirely outside the training views (for example, a mirror on a wall facing a closed corridor), run the initial NeRF with the depth reprojection loss, and check whether any mirror pixels receive a high score $s(r)$. The paper's own proxy-geometry discussion predicts they will not, which would show the automatic detection is not general across capture configurations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that mirror surfaces can be located from the artifacts a standard NeRF produces, provided the initial geometry is constrained by a depth reprojection loss. In mirror regions, the radiance field cannot reconcile the reflected appearances seen from different views; it renders blurry, structurally anomalous images while still placing the alleged surface at a fairly stable depth. The score $s(r) = \frac{1-\mathrm{SSIM}(r)}{2} e^{-c V(r)}$ combines local structural dissimilarity with depth variance so high-score pixels mark exactly the inconsistent-but-confident regions, which are fit as explicit mirror primitives. The second stage jointly trains the radiance field and the primitive parameters by tracing reflected rays and blending primary and reflected colors through differentiable antialiased masks, with a norm schedule that moves from $L^2$ to $L^1$ and back to sharpen mirror edges without introducing flat-color artifacts. On the tested synthetic and real-world multi-mirror scenes, the method improves over annotation-free baselines and approaches the quality of supervised mirror-aware methods.

Load-bearing premise

The detection step assumes mirror regions make a standard NeRF render structurally wrong but depth-confident; if the mirror's reflection can be absorbed as ordinary fake geometry because the space behind it was never photographed, the score never fires and no primitive is found.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mirror masks, the main user burden of previous mirror-aware NeRF methods, are no longer required for scenes whose mirrors produce detectable inconsistency.
  • The detected primitives give an explicit, optimizable mirror geometry that can be refined during training, so the reconstruction of the mirror plane and the scene behind it improve together.
  • Because the approach routes reflected ray contributions back to actual scene points, it reduces the blurriness and multi-view ghosting that standard NeRFs show in mirror regions, and it improves perceptual metrics on full test images.
  • The optimization falls back gracefully to a standard NeRF quality level when shape initialization is poor, so a failed mirror estimate degrades performance but does not destroy the scene model.
  • The method is currently limited to mirrors visible to primary rays and mostly evaluated on planar mirrors, with one cylinder experiment suggesting extension to curved primitives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's experiments, the same inconsistency signal could be applied to 3D Gaussian splatting or other radiance-field variants, since the failure mode—mirror reflections being multi-view inconsistent—is representation-agnostic.
  • If detection relies on the failure signature, scenes with mirrors reflecting unobserved space remain a natural blind spot: the paper itself notes such mirrors can be absorbed as proxy geometry, so a practical deployment would need a complementary cue such as motion parallax or geometric plausibility.
  • The norm schedule suggests a generic training trick for explicit-geometry NeRF extensions: starting with $L^2$, quickly switching to a sparsity-favoring $L^1$ plateau, and returning to $L^2$ can help jump between local optima, and testing that schedule on other surface types would isolate its role.
  • The method's upper bound is set by the quality of the initial depth, so using stronger monocular depth priors may make detection work in sparser captures where the current reprojection loss lacks signal.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NeRF-MD, a two-stage pipeline for reconstructing neural radiance fields of scenes with mirroring surfaces without user-provided mirror masks. In the first stage, a standard NeRF is trained with a depth reprojection loss; mirror candidate pixels are then identified using a per-pixel score s(r) = (1 - SSIM(r))/2 * exp(-c V(r)) that combines structural dissimilarity with depth variance. Candidate pixels are unprojected, clustered, and fit with RANSAC primitives. In the second stage, the radiance field and primitive parameters are jointly optimized using reflected rays and differentiable antialiased mirror masks, with a scheduled p-norm photometric loss. The method is evaluated on seven synthetic and two real scenes from the TraM-NeRF dataset, excluding front-facing scenes and surfaces with non-zero roughness, and is compared against NeRF baselines and prior-annotated mirror-aware methods. The paper also documents failure modes, including mirrors reconstructed as proxy geometry and implausible initial depths.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would remove a major practical barrier in mirror-aware neural scene reconstruction, namely the need for manual mirror masks. The work has several genuine strengths: the evaluation is end-to-end on held-out test views across nine scenes, standard deviations are reported, comparisons include methods with strong priors, and the source code is publicly available. The SSIM-plus-depth-variance score is a simple, falsifiable heuristic that is interesting in its own right. However, the central claim of faithful automatic mirror detection is not directly tested: no detection metric (mask IoU, precision/recall, primitive parameter error) is reported, and the paper's own discussion in Section 6 shows that the detection mechanism can fail in ways that are not reflected in the headline aggregate numbers.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1] The paper's central claim is automatic mirror detection, yet no detection metric is reported anywhere. Table 1 reports only downstream rendering metrics (PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS) on full images and on preset mirror-region masks; there is no IoU, precision/recall, or primitive-parameter error for the detected mirror planes on any scene. Because Section 6 states that erroneous mirrors are quickly shrunk or moved behind scene geometry so that the result falls back to baseline quality, the reported rendering improvements do not by themselves establish that mirrors are faithfully detected. Please report per-scene detection metrics against the TraM-NeRF masks, including the Fig. 6 failure case, and state the metric values for scenes where detection fails.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (7), and Section 6] The score s(r) in Eq. (7) isolates mirror pixels only if the initial standard NeRF produces both high structural dissimilarity and low depth variance in mirror regions. This is an empirical coincidence rather than a guaranteed property, and the paper itself documents two failure modes in Section 6: a mirror can be reconstructed as proxy geometry when the region behind the wall is not captured, producing no photometric inconsistency, and Fig. 6 shows a scene where the initial depth is implausible, causing the primitive initialization to miss the mirror and the final result to retain artifacts. The manuscript should quantify how often these failure modes occur across the dataset family and state the conditions under which Eq. (7) is reliable; otherwise the 'faithful detection' claim in the abstract is not supported.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 6] The shape-fitting procedure requires the type and number of primitive shapes k to be provided a priori. This is a scene-level prior that is not inferred from the data. While the method avoids per-pixel annotations, the claim of 'automated localization and reconstruction' in the introduction is weakened by the need to know the number of mirrors and the shape class before fitting. Please either automate the selection of k and shape type or explicitly qualify that the method detects mirror locations only given the mirror count and shape class as inputs.
  4. [Section 5] The evaluation excludes scenes that are 'front-facing or containing specular surfaces with non-zero roughness.' This selection narrows the scope of the claims but is not justified or analyzed. Since the stated goal is general scenes containing mirroring surfaces, the paper should either include these excluded cases or provide an analysis of why they are outside the method's intended operating range. As presented, the quantitative conclusions apply only to the selected subset, and the reader cannot assess how the method behaves on the broader dataset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (8), and Fig. 3] The p-norm scheduling parameters (tau_init, tau_inc, tau_std), the threshold S, and the exponent c in Eq. (7) are not given in the main text, and no sensitivity analysis is provided; please report the values used and ideally include an ablation.
  2. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'MS-NeRF struggle to handle the scenario of high-order bounces' contains a subject-verb agreement error ('struggle' should be 'struggles'), and the following explanation about network capacity is difficult to parse; please rewrite for clarity.
  3. [Section 6] The text uses 'apriori knowledge' where the standard form is 'a priori'; the same typo appears in the description of the primitive fitting procedure.
  4. [References] Reference [33] is formatted as 'Hollandet al.' with a missing space; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: mirror detection is an empirical reconstruction-error signal, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an end-to-end optimization pipeline rather than a closed-form derivation. The mirror score s(r) in Eq. (7) combines SSIM against the training images and depth variance; it is not defined in terms of the mirror parameters, and the mirror primitives are fit to unprojected high-score pixels and then jointly optimized. The central claim is not circular by construction: the detection signal is an empirical property of a standard NeRF trained on the same multi-view images, and the paper explicitly demonstrates this property (Fig. 2) and documents two failure modes (Sec. 6, Fig. 6) where the property does not hold. All quantitative results are reported on held-out test views. The main self-citations, TraM-NeRF [33] for the dataset, masks, and initial observation that NeRF artifacts concentrate in mirror regions, and the rendering formulation borrowed from [33], are not load-bearing circular inputs: the observation is independently visualized in the present paper, the masks are used only for evaluation of mirror-region metrics, and the comparison to TraM-NeRF is a baseline that requires manual priors. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz hidden in a self-citation, and no renaming of a known result as organization. The admitted reliance on known primitive type and count (Sec. 6) is a limitation, not a circular step.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on empirical assumptions about NeRF training behavior, on hand-specified primitive types and counts, and on several tuned thresholds and schedule parameters; these are listed above as free parameters and domain assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • Score threshold S = not reported (supplementary)
    Pixels with score s(r) above S are unprojected to form the mirror point cloud; detection sensitivity depends on this threshold (Sec. 4.2).
  • Depth-variance exponent c = not reported (supplementary)
    Controls the slope of the mapping from depth variance to score re-weighting in Eq. (7).
  • Number and type of primitive shapes k = set by user per scene (planar mirrors in experiments)
    k-means clustering and RANSAC require the user to supply the number of mirror primitives and their shape type, a hand-specified prior (Sec. 4.2).
  • p-norm schedule breakpoints (tau_init, tau_inc, tau_std) = not reported in main text
    The piecewise-linear loss norm schedule in Eq. (8) was tuned to make the joint mirror optimization stable (Sec. 4.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A standard NeRF trained with a depth reprojection loss reconstructs non-mirror regions plausibly while leaving high photometric inconsistency on mirror regions.
    The entire detection pipeline in Sec. 4.1 relies on this contrast. A failure case is shown in Fig. 6 and discussed in Sec. 6.
  • domain assumption Mirrors are representable by a known number of primitive shapes (planes in almost all experiments) and are visible from primary camera rays.
    Sec. 4.2 requires a priori shape type and count, and Sec. 6 states that antialiasing masks are only computed for the first surface interaction.
  • domain assumption Depth from a standard NeRF is accurate enough in mirror regions for unprojection, despite color inconsistencies.
    The score in Eq. (7) weights SSIM by e^{-c V(r)}, so low depth variance is required. If depth is wrong, mirror initialization is wrong, as shown in Fig. 6.
  • standard math The standard NeRF volume rendering equations and the SPARF depth reprojection loss are valid background tools.
    Used without proof in Eqs. (1) through (4) as the base for the initial training stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeRFs are Mirror Detectors: Using Structural Similarity for Multi-View Mirror Scene Reconstruction with 3D Surface Primitives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7J5LO4MN

@misc{pith2026250104074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeRFs are Mirror Detectors: Using Structural Similarity for Multi-View Mirror Scene Reconstruction with 3D Surface Primitives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7J5LO4MN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04074}
}
read the original abstract

While neural radiance fields (NeRF) led to a breakthrough in photorealistic novel view synthesis, handling mirroring surfaces still denotes a particular challenge as they introduce severe inconsistencies in the scene representation. Previous attempts either focus on reconstructing single reflective objects or rely on strong supervision guidance in terms of additional user-provided annotations of visible image regions of the mirrors, thereby limiting the practical usability. In contrast, in this paper, we present NeRF-MD, a method which shows that NeRFs can be considered as mirror detectors and which is capable of reconstructing neural radiance fields of scenes containing mirroring surfaces without the need for prior annotations. To this end, we first compute an initial estimate of the scene geometry by training a standard NeRF using a depth reprojection loss. Our key insight lies in the fact that parts of the scene corresponding to a mirroring surface will still exhibit a significant photometric inconsistency, whereas the remaining parts are already reconstructed in a plausible manner. This allows us to detect mirror surfaces by fitting geometric primitives to such inconsistent regions in this initial stage of the training. Using this information, we then jointly optimize the radiance field and mirror geometry in a second training stage to refine their quality. We demonstrate the capability of our method to allow the faithful detection of mirrors in the scene as well as the reconstruction of a single consistent scene representation, and demonstrate its potential in comparison to baseline and mirror-aware approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04074 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our pipeline. (a) A collection of training images is first used to train a standard NeRF model with an additional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples for the intermediate values used to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The proposed p-norm schedule (solid blue line) com￾pared to the usual L2 optimization (dotted green line). The images show a zoom in to a mirror region after τinc iterations. regions using k-means clustering [52]. For each of the re￾gions, we found that using RANSAC [25] to fit the prim￾itive shape to the point suffices to yield a plausible initial estimate of the surface. More specifically, we first com￾pute a best… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results on the test set of two synthetic scenes compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results on a scene from the TraM-NeRF dataset, show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experimental results on the synthetic cylinder scene of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T¨oRF: Time-of-flight radiance fields for dynamic scene view synthesis

    Benjamin Attal, Eliot Laidlaw, Aaron Gokaslan, Changil Kim, Christian Richardt, James Tompkin, and Matthew O’Toole. T¨oRF: Time-of-flight radiance fields for dynamic scene view synthesis. NeurIPS, 34:26289–26301, 2021. 3

    2021

  2. [2]

    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 ICCV, pages 5855–5864, 2021. 2, 4

    2021

  3. [3]

    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 CVPR, pages 5470– 5479, 2022. 2, 6, 7

    2022

  4. [4]

    Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid- based neural radiance fields

    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

    2023

  5. [5]

    Neural re- flectance fields for appearance acquisition

    Sai Bi, Zexiang Xu, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Milo ˇs Haˇsan, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, David Kriegman, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Neural re- flectance fields for appearance acquisition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.03824, 2020. 1, 2, 3

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Deep reflectance volumes: Relightable recon- structions from multi-view photometric images

    Sai Bi, Zexiang Xu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Milo ˇs Ha ˇsan, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, David Kriegman, and Ravi Ra- mamoorthi. Deep reflectance volumes: Relightable recon- structions from multi-view photometric images. In ECCV, pages 294–311. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [7]

    NoPe-NeRF: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior

    Wenjing Bian, Zirui Wang, Kejie Li, Jia-Wang Bian, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. NoPe-NeRF: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior. In CVPR, pages 4160– 4169, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [8]

    Barron, Ce Liu, and Hendrik Lensch

    Mark Boss, Raphael Braun, Varun Jampani, Jonathan T. Barron, Ce Liu, and Hendrik Lensch. Nerd: Neural re- flectance decomposition from image collections. In ICCV, pages 12684–12694, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    Samurai: Shape and material from uncon- strained real-world arbitrary image collections

    Mark Boss, Andreas Engelhardt, Abhishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Deqing Sun, Jonathan Barron, Hendrik Lensch, and Varun Jampani. Samurai: Shape and material from uncon- strained real-world arbitrary image collections. NeurIPS, 35:26389–26403, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  2. [10]

    Neural-pil: Neu- ral pre-integrated lighting for reflectance decomposition

    Mark Boss, Varun Jampani, Raphael Braun, Ce Liu, Jonathan Barron, and Hendrik Lensch. Neural-pil: Neu- ral pre-integrated lighting for reflectance decomposition. NeurIPS, 34:10691–10704, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  3. [11]

    Real-time neural light field on mo- bile devices

    Junli Cao, Huan Wang, Pavlo Chemerys, Vladislav Shakhrai, Ju Hu, Yun Fu, Denys Makoviichuk, Sergey Tulyakov, and Jian Ren. Real-time neural light field on mo- bile devices. In CVPR, pages 8328–8337, 2023. 2

    2023

  4. [12]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. InECCV, pages 333–350, 2022. 2

    2022

  5. [13]

    Animatable neural ra- diance fields from monocular rgb videos

    Jianchuan Chen, Ying Zhang, Di Kang, Xuefei Zhe, Lin- chao Bao, Xu Jia, and Huchuan Lu. Animatable neural ra- diance fields from monocular rgb videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13629, 6 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hallucinated neural radiance fields in the wild

    Xingyu Chen, Qi Zhang, Xiaoyu Li, Yue Chen, Ying Feng, Xuan Wang, and Jue Wang. Hallucinated neural radiance fields in the wild. In CVPR, pages 12943–12952, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [15]

    Local-to-global registration for bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields

    Yue Chen, Xingyu Chen, Xuan Wang, Qi Zhang, Yu Guo, Ying Shan, and Fei Wang. Local-to-global registration for bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 8264–8273, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    DBARF: deep bundle-adjusting generalizable neural radiance fields

    Yu Chen and Gim Hee Lee. DBARF: deep bundle-adjusting generalizable neural radiance fields. InCVPR, pages 24–34,

  9. [17]

    MobileNeRF: Exploiting the polygon rasterization pipeline for efficient neural field rendering on mobile architectures

    Zhiqin Chen, Thomas Funkhouser, Peter Hedman, and An- drea Tagliasacchi. MobileNeRF: Exploiting the polygon rasterization pipeline for efficient neural field rendering on mobile architectures. In CVPR, pages 16569–16578, 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    LU-NeRF: Scene and pose estimation by synchronizing local unposed nerfs

    Zezhou Cheng, Carlos Esteves, Varun Jampani, Abhishek Kar, Subhransu Maji, and Ameesh Makadia. LU-NeRF: Scene and pose estimation by synchronizing local unposed nerfs. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  11. [19]

    Streamable neural fields

    Junwoo Cho, Seungtae Nam, Daniel Rho, Jong Hwan Ko, and Eunbyung Park. Streamable neural fields. In Shai Avi- dan, Gabriel J. Brostow, Moustapha Ciss´e, Giovanni Maria Farinella, and Tal Hassner, editors, ECCV, volume 13680, pages 595–612. Springer, Springer Nature Switzerland, 7

  12. [20]

    Orbeez-SLAM: A real- time monocular visual SLAM with ORB features and nerf- realized mapping

    Chi-Ming Chung, Yang-Che Tseng, Ya-Ching Hsu, Xiang- Qian Shi, Yun-Hung Hua, Jia-Fong Yeh, Wen-Chin Chen, Yi-Ting Chen, and Winston H Hsu. Orbeez-SLAM: A real- time monocular visual SLAM with ORB features and nerf- realized mapping. In ICRA, pages 9400–9406. IEEE, 2023. 2

    2023

  13. [21]

    Depth-supervised NeRF: Fewer views and faster training for free

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised NeRF: Fewer views and faster training for free. In CVPR, pages 12882–12891. IEEE, 6

  14. [22]

    Neural radiance flow for 4D view synthesis and video processing

    Yilun Du, Yinan Zhang, Hong-Xing Yu, Joshua B Tenen- baum, and Jiajun Wu. Neural radiance flow for 4D view synthesis and video processing. In ICCV, pages 14304– 14314. IEEE Computer Society, IEEE, 10 2021. 2

    2021

  15. [23]

    Factored-neus: Reconstructing surfaces, illumination, and materials of possibly glossy objects

    Yue Fan, Ivan Skorokhodov, Oleg V oynov, Savva Ig- natyev, Evgeny Burnaev, Peter Wonka, and Yiqun Wang. Factored-neus: Reconstructing surfaces, illumination, and materials of possibly glossy objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17929, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels

    Jiemin Fang, Taoran Yi, Xinggang Wang, Lingxi Xie, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Qi Tian. Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels. In SIGGRAPH Asia, pages 1–9, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  17. [25]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography

    Martin A Fischler and Robert C Bolles. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communica- tions of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981. 6

    1981

  18. [26]

    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, pages 5501–5510, 2022. 2

    2022

  19. [27]

    Dynamic neural radiance fields for monocular 4D facial avatar reconstruction

    Guy Gafni, Justus Thies, Michael Zollhofer, and Matthias Nießner. Dynamic neural radiance fields for monocular 4D facial avatar reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 8649–8658. IEEE, 6 2021. 3

    2021

  20. [28]

    Dynamic view synthesis from dynamic monocu- lar video

    Chen Gao, Ayush Saraf, Johannes Kopf, and Jia-Bin Huang. Dynamic view synthesis from dynamic monocu- lar video. In ICCV, pages 5712–5721. IEEE, 10 2021. 2

    2021

  21. [29]

    Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps

    Stephan J Garbin, Marek Kowalski, Matthew Johnson, Jamie Shotton, and Julien Valentin. Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps. In ICCV, pages 14346–14355,

  22. [30]

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

    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 reflec- tion. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  23. [31]

    Nerfren: Neural radiance fields with reflections

    Yuan-Chen Guo, Di Kang, Linchao Bao, Yu He, and Song- Hai Zhang. Nerfren: Neural radiance fields with reflections. In CVPR, pages 18409–18418, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Kim, and Jin-Hwa Kim

    Hwan Heo, Taekyung Kim, Jiyoung Lee, Jaewon Lee, Soohyun Kim, Hyunwoo J. Kim, and Jin-Hwa Kim. Robust camera pose refinement for multi-resolution hash encoding. In ICML, 2023. 2

    2023

  25. [33]

    Tram-NeRF: Trac- ing Mirror and Near-Perfect Specular Reflections Through Neural Radiance Fields

    Leif Van Holland, Ruben Bliersbach, Jan Uwe M ¨uller, Patrick Stotko, and Reinhard Klein. Tram-NeRF: Trac- ing Mirror and Near-Perfect Specular Reflections Through Neural Radiance Fields. Computer Graphics Forum, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  26. [34]

    Hdr-nerf: High dynamic range neu- ral radiance fields

    Xin Huang, Qi Zhang, Ying Feng, Hongdong Li, Xuan Wang, and Qing Wang. Hdr-nerf: High dynamic range neu- ral radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 18398–18408, 2022. 2

    2022

  27. [35]

    Self-calibrating neural radiance fields

    Yoonwoo Jeong, Seokjun Ahn, Christopher Choy, Anima Anandkumar, Minsu Cho, and Jaesik Park. Self-calibrating neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pages 5846–5854. IEEE, 10 2021. 2

    2021

  28. [36]

    AligNeRF: High-fidelity neural radiance fields via alignment-aware training

    Yifan Jiang, Peter Hedman, Ben Mildenhall, Dejia Xu, Jonathan T Barron, Zhangyang Wang, and Tianfan Xue. AligNeRF: High-fidelity neural radiance fields via alignment-aware training. In CVPR, pages 46–55, 2023. 3

    2023

  29. [37]

    Tensoir: Tensorial inverse rendering

    Haian Jin, Isabella Liu, Peijia Xu, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Song- fang Han, Sai Bi, Xiaowei Zhou, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. Tensoir: Tensorial inverse rendering. In CVPR, pages 165– 174, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  30. [38]

    HDR-Plenoxels: Self-calibrating high dynamic range radiance fields

    Kim Jun-Seong, Kim Yu-Ji, Moon Ye-Bin, and Tae-Hyun Oh. HDR-Plenoxels: Self-calibrating high dynamic range radiance fields. In ECCV, pages 384–401. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [39]

    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. TOG, 42(4):1–14, 2023. 2

    2023

  32. [40]

    Neroic: Neural rendering of objects from online image collections

    Zhengfei Kuang, Kyle Olszewski, Menglei Chai, Zeng Huang, Panos Achlioptas, and Sergey Tulyakov. Neroic: Neural rendering of objects from online image collections. TOG, 41(4):1–12, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  33. [41]

    Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering

    Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Seol, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Modular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics, 39(6), 2020. 6

    2020

  34. [42]

    Streaming radiance fields for 3d video synthesis

    Lingzhi Li, Zhen Shen, Zhongshu Wang, Li Shen, and Ping Tan. Streaming radiance fields for 3d video synthesis. In NeurIPS, 2022. 2

    2022

  35. [43]

    Uhd- nerf: Ultra-high-definition neural radiance fields

    Quewei Li, Feichao Li, Jie Guo, and Yanwen Guo. Uhd- nerf: Ultra-high-definition neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pages 23097–23108, 2023. 2

    2023

  36. [44]

    Neu- ral 3D video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, et al. Neu- ral 3D video synthesis from multi-view video. In CVPR, pages 5521–5531. IEEE, 6 2022. 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthe- sis of dynamic scenes

    Zhengqi Li, Simon Niklaus, Noah Snavely, and Oliver Wang. Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthe- sis of dynamic scenes. In CVPR, pages 6498–6508. IEEE, 6 2021. 2

    2021

  38. [46]

    DynIBaR: neural dynamic image-based rendering

    Zhengqi Li, Qianqian Wang, Forrester Cole, Richard Tucker, and Noah Snavely. DynIBaR: neural dynamic image-based rendering. In CVPR, pages 4273–4284, 2023. 3

    2023

  39. [47]

    Envidr: Im- plicit differentiable renderer with neural environment light- ing

    Ruofan Liang, Huiting Chen, Chunlin Li, Fan Chen, Sel- vakumar Panneer, and Nandita Vijaykumar. Envidr: Im- plicit differentiable renderer with neural environment light- ing. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  40. [48]

    BaRF: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Wei-Chiu Ma, Antonio Torralba, and Si- mon Lucey. BaRF: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pages 5741–5751. IEEE, 10 2021. 2

    2021

  41. [49]

    NeRF-Loc: Visual localization with conditional neural ra- diance field

    Jianlin Liu, Qiang Nie, Yong Liu, and Chengjie Wang. NeRF-Loc: Visual localization with conditional neural ra- diance field. In ICRA, 2023. 2

    2023

  42. [50]

    Mirrorgaussian: Reflecting 3d gaus- sians for reconstructing mirror reflections

    Jiayue Liu, Xiao Tang, Freeman Cheng, Roy Yang, Zhi- hao Li, Jianzhuang Liu, Yi Huang, Jiaqi Lin, Shiyong Liu, Xiaofei Wu, et al. Mirrorgaussian: Reflecting 3d gaus- sians for reconstructing mirror reflections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11921, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Neural actor: Neural free-view synthesis of human actors with pose con- trol

    Lingjie Liu, Marc Habermann, Viktor Rudnev, Kripasindhu Sarkar, Jiatao Gu, and Christian Theobalt. Neural actor: Neural free-view synthesis of human actors with pose con- trol. TOG, 40(6):1–16, 2021. 3

    2021

  44. [52]

    Least squares quantization in pcm

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE transactions on information theory , 28(2):129–137, 1982. 6

    1982

  45. [53]

    Neural volumes: learning dynamic renderable volumes from im- ages

    Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Jason Saragih, Gabriel Schwartz, Andreas Lehrmann, and Yaser Sheikh. Neural volumes: learning dynamic renderable volumes from im- ages. TOG, 38(4):1–14, 2019. 2

    2019

  46. [54]

    Specnerf: Gaussian directional encoding for specular reflections

    Li Ma, Vasu Agrawal, Haithem Turki, Changil Kim, Chen Gao, Pedro Sander, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, and Chris- tian Richardt. Specnerf: Gaussian directional encoding for specular reflections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13102,

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Loc-NeRF: Monte carlo localiza- tion using neural radiance fields

    Dominic Maggio, Marcus Abate, Jingnan Shi, Courtney Mario, and Luca Carlone. Loc-NeRF: Monte carlo localiza- tion using neural radiance fields. ICRA, pages 4018–4025,

  48. [56]

    Neural microfacet fields for inverse ren- dering

    Alexander Mai, Dor Verbin, Falko Kuester, and Sara Fridovich-Keil. Neural microfacet fields for inverse ren- dering. In ICCV, pages 408–418, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  49. [57]

    Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for un- constrained photo collections

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Jonathan T Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duck- worth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for un- constrained photo collections. In CVPR, pages 7210–7219,

  50. [58]

    Optical models for direct volume rendering

    Nelson Max. Optical models for direct volume rendering. TVCG, 1(2):99–108, 1995. 4

    1995

  51. [59]

    Mirror-3dgs: Incorpo- rating mirror reflections into 3d gaussian splatting

    Jiarui Meng, Haijie Li, Yanmin Wu, Qiankun Gao, Shuzhou Yang, Jian Zhang, and Siwei Ma. Mirror-3dgs: Incorpo- rating mirror reflections into 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01168, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    GNeRF: GAN-based neural radiance field without posed camera

    Quan Meng, Anpei Chen, Haimin Luo, Minye Wu, Hao Su, Lan Xu, Xuming He, and Jingyi Yu. GNeRF: GAN-based neural radiance field without posed camera. InICCV, pages 6351–6361. IEEE, 10 2021. 2

    2021

  53. [61]

    Switch-NeRF: Learning scene decomposition with mixture of experts for large-scale neu- ral radiance fields

    Zhenxing Mi and Dan Xu. Switch-NeRF: Learning scene decomposition with mixture of experts for large-scale neu- ral radiance fields. In ICLR, 2023. 3

    2023

  54. [62]

    Nerf in the dark: High dynamic range view synthesis from noisy raw images

    Ben Mildenhall, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Jonathan T Barron. Nerf in the dark: High dynamic range view synthesis from noisy raw images. In CVPR, pages 16190–16199, 2022. 2

    2022

  55. [63]

    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. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7

    2020

  56. [64]

    Hardware acceleration of neural graphics

    Muhammad Husnain Mubarik, Ramakrishna Kanungo, To- bias Zirr, and Rakesh Kumar. Hardware acceleration of neural graphics. In Yan Solihin and Mark A. Heinrich, edi- tors, ISCA, pages 50:1–50:12. ACM, 2023. 2

    2023

  57. [65]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. TOG, 41(4):102:1–102:15,

  58. [66]

    Extracting triangular 3d models, materials, and lighting from images

    Jacob Munkberg, Jon Hasselgren, Tianchang Shen, Jun Gao, Wenzheng Chen, Alex Evans, Thomas M ¨uller, and Sanja Fidler. Extracting triangular 3d models, materials, and lighting from images. In CVPR, pages 8280–8290,

  59. [67]

    Giraffe: Repre- senting scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields

    Michael Niemeyer and Andreas Geiger. Giraffe: Repre- senting scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields. In CVPR, pages 11453–11464, 2021. 3

    2021

  60. [68]

    Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learning implicit 3d representations without 3d supervi- sion

    Michael Niemeyer, Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, and Andreas Geiger. Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learning implicit 3d representations without 3d supervi- sion. In CVPR, pages 3504–3515, 2020. 2

    2020

  61. [69]

    Neural articulated radiance field

    Atsuhiro Noguchi, Xiao Sun, Stephen Lin, and Tatsuya Harada. Neural articulated radiance field. In ICCV, pages 5762–5772. IEEE, 10 2021. 3

    2021

  62. [70]

    Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Steven M Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualla. Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pages 5865–5874. IEEE, 10 2021. 3

    2021

  63. [71]

    HyperNeRF: A higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Peter Hedman, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Steven M Seitz. HyperNeRF: A higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields. TOG, 2021. 3

    2021

  64. [72]

    An- imatable neural radiance fields for modeling dynamic hu- man bodies

    Sida Peng, Junting Dong, Qianqian Wang, Shangzhan Zhang, Qing Shuai, Xiaowei Zhou, and Hujun Bao. An- imatable neural radiance fields for modeling dynamic hu- man bodies. In ICCV, pages 14314–14323. IEEE, 10 2021. 3

    2021

  65. [73]

    Neural body: Implicit neural representations with structured latent codes for novel view synthesis of dynamic humans

    Sida Peng, Yuanqing Zhang, Yinghao Xu, Qianqian Wang, Qing Shuai, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Neural body: Implicit neural representations with structured latent codes for novel view synthesis of dynamic humans. In CVPR, pages 9054–9063. IEEE, 6 2021. 2

    2021

  66. [74]

    D-NeRF: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes

    Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. D-NeRF: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. In CVPR, pages 10318–10327. IEEE, 6 2021. 3

    2021

  67. [75]

    Saragih, Shunsuke Saito, James Hays, and Stephen Lom- bardi

    Amit Raj, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, Tomas Simon, Jason M. Saragih, Shunsuke Saito, James Hays, and Stephen Lom- bardi. Pixel-aligned volumetric avatars. In CVPR, pages 11733–11742. IEEE, 6 2021. 3

    2021

  68. [76]

    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, pages 14335–14345,

  69. [77]

    Urban radiance fields

    Konstantinos Rematas, Andrew Liu, Pratul P Srini- vasan, Jonathan T Barron, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Thomas Funkhouser, and Vittorio Ferrari. Urban radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 12932–12942. IEEE, 6 2022. 3

    2022

  70. [78]

    Dense depth priors for neural radiance fields from sparse input views

    Barbara Roessle, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Matthias Nießner. Dense depth priors for neural radiance fields from sparse input views. In CVPR, pages 12892–12901. IEEE, 6 2022. 3

    2022

  71. [79]

    NeRF- SLAM: Real-time dense monocular SLAM with neural ra- diance fields

    Antoni Rosinol, John J Leonard, and Luca Carlone. NeRF- SLAM: Real-time dense monocular SLAM with neural ra- diance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13641, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Schnabel, R

    R. Schnabel, R. Wahl, and R. Klein. Efficient ransac for point-cloud shape detection. Computer Graphics Forum , 26(2):214–226, 2007. 8

    2007

  73. [81]

    Scene representation networks: Continuous 3d- structure-aware neural scene representations

    Vincent Sitzmann, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, and Gordon Wet- zstein. Scene representation networks: Continuous 3d- structure-aware neural scene representations. NeurIPS, 32,

  74. [82]

    Nerv: Neural reflectance and visibility fields for relighting and view synthesis

    Pratul P Srinivasan, Boyang Deng, Xiuming Zhang, Matthew Tancik, Ben Mildenhall, and Jonathan T Barron. Nerv: Neural reflectance and visibility fields for relighting and view synthesis. In CVPR, pages 7495–7504, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  75. [83]

    iMAP: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time

    Edgar Sucar, Shikun Liu, Joseph Ortiz, and Andrew J Davi- son. iMAP: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time. In ICCV, pages 6229–6238. IEEE, 10 2021. 2

    2021

  76. [84]

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

    Cheng Sun, Min Sun, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radi- ance fields reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 5459–5469. IEEE, 6 2022. 2

    2022

  77. [85]

    NeRF-Loc: Transformer-based object localization within neural radiance fields

    Jiankai Sun, Yan Xu, Mingyu Ding, Hongwei Yi, Chen Wang, Jingdong Wang, Liangjun Zhang, and Mac Schwa- ger. NeRF-Loc: Transformer-based object localization within neural radiance fields. RAL, 8(8):5244–5250, 2023. 2

    2023

  78. [86]

    Variable bitrate neural fields

    Towaki Takikawa, Alex Evans, Jonathan Tremblay, Thomas M¨uller, Morgan McGuire, Alec Jacobson, and Sanja Fidler. Variable bitrate neural fields. In Munkhtsetseg Nandigjav, Niloy J. Mitra, and Aaron Hertzmann, editors,SIGGRAPH, pages 41:1–41:9. ACM, 2022. 2

    2022

  79. [87]

    Block-NeRF: Scalable large scene neural view synthesis

    Matthew Tancik, Vincent Casser, Xinchen Yan, Sabeek Pradhan, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Jonathan T Barron, and Henrik Kretzschmar. Block-NeRF: Scalable large scene neural view synthesis. In CVPR, pages 8248–

  80. [88]

    Mildenhall, Pratul P

    Matthew Tancik, Vincent Casser, Xinchen Yan, Sabeek Pradhan, Ben P. Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Barron, and Henrik Kretzschmar. Block-NeRF: Scalable large scene neural view synthesis. InCVPR, pages 8238–8248. IEEE, 2022. 2

    2022

  81. [89]

    State of the art on neural rendering

    Ayush Tewari, Ohad Fried, Justus Thies, et al. State of the art on neural rendering. In CGF, volume 39, pages 701–

  82. [90]

    Ad- vances in neural rendering

    Ayush Tewari, Justus Thies, Ben Mildenhall, et al. Ad- vances in neural rendering. InCGF, volume 41, pages 703–

  83. [91]

    Non-rigid neural radiance fields: Reconstruction and novel view synthesis of a dynamic scene from monoc- ular video

    Edgar Tretschk, Ayush Tewari, Vladislav Golyanik, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, Christoph Lassner, and Christian Theobalt. Non-rigid neural radiance fields: Reconstruction and novel view synthesis of a dynamic scene from monoc- ular video. In ICCV, pages 12959–12970. IEEE, 10 2021. 3

    2021

  84. [92]

    Sparf: Neural radiance fields from sparse and noisy poses

    Prune Truong, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Fabian Manhardt, and Federico Tombari. Sparf: Neural radiance fields from sparse and noisy poses. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4190–4200, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  85. [93]

    CLA-NeRF: Category-level articulated neural radi- ance field

    Wei-Cheng Tseng, Hung-Ju Liao, Lin Yen-Chen, and Min Sun. CLA-NeRF: Category-level articulated neural radi- ance field. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00181, 5 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Mega-NeRF: Scalable construction of large- scale NeRFs for virtual fly-throughs

    Haithem Turki, Deva Ramanan, and Mahadev Satya- narayanan. Mega-NeRF: Scalable construction of large- scale NeRFs for virtual fly-throughs. In CVPR, pages 12922–12931. IEEE, 6 2022. 3

    2022

  87. [95]

    Ref-NeRF: Structured view-dependent appearance for neural radiance fields

    Dor Verbin, Peter Hedman, Ben Mildenhall, Todd Zickler, Jonathan T Barron, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Ref-NeRF: Structured view-dependent appearance for neural radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 5481–5490. IEEE, 2022. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2022

  88. [96]

    Nerf-casting: Improved view- dependent appearance with consistent reflections

    Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, Peter Hedman, Ben Mildenhall, Benjamin Attal, Richard Szeliski, and Jonathan T Barron. Nerf-casting: Improved view- dependent appearance with consistent reflections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14871, 2024. 1, 3

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Nerf-sr: High quality neural radiance fields using supersampling

    Chen Wang, Xian Wu, Yuan-Chen Guo, Song-Hai Zhang, Yu-Wing Tai, and Shi-Min Hu. Nerf-sr: High quality neural radiance fields using supersampling. In MM, pages 6445– 6454, 2022. 2

    2022

  90. [98]

    R2l: Distilling neural radiance field to neural light field for efficient novel view synthesis

    Huan Wang, Jian Ren, Zeng Huang, Kyle Olszewski, Men- glei Chai, Yun Fu, and Sergey Tulyakov. R2l: Distilling neural radiance field to neural light field for efficient novel view synthesis. In ECCV, pages 612–629. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  91. [99]

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

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view recon- struction. In NeurIPS, 2021. 3

    2021

  92. [100]

    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, pages 3295–3306, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  93. [101]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. TIP, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 5, 6

    2004

  94. [102]

    4k-nerf: High fidelity neural radiance fields at ultra high resolutions

    Zhongshu Wang, Lingzhi Li, Zhen Shen, Li Shen, and Liefeng Bo. 4k-nerf: High fidelity neural radiance fields at ultra high resolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04701,

    arXiv

  95. [103]

    NeRF–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters

    Zirui Wang, Shangzhe Wu, Weidi Xie, Min Chen, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. NeRF–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07064, 2 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    NerfingMVS: Guided optimization of neural radiance fields for indoor multi-view stereo

    Yi Wei, Shaohui Liu, Yongming Rao, Wang Zhao, Jiwen Lu, and Jie Zhou. NerfingMVS: Guided optimization of neural radiance fields for indoor multi-view stereo. In ICCV, pages 5610–5619. IEEE, 10 2021. 3

    2021

  97. [105]

    Nefii: Inverse rendering for re- flectance decomposition with near-field indirect illumina- tion

    Haoqian Wu, Zhipeng Hu, Lincheng Li, Yongqiang Zhang, Changjie Fan, and Xin Yu. Nefii: Inverse rendering for re- flectance decomposition with near-field indirect illumina- tion. In CVPR, pages 4295–4304, 2023. 3

    2023

  98. [106]

    Neural directional encoding for efficient and accu- rate view-dependent appearance modeling

    Liwen Wu, Sai Bi, Zexiang Xu, Fujun Luan, Kai Zhang, Iliyan Georgiev, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Ravi Ramamoor- thi. Neural directional encoding for efficient and accu- rate view-dependent appearance modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14847, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    SiNeRF: Sinusoidal neural radiance fields for joint pose es- timation and scene reconstruction

    Yitong Xia, Hao Tang, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. SiNeRF: Sinusoidal neural radiance fields for joint pose es- timation and scene reconstruction. In BMVC, page 131. BMV A Press, 2022. 2

    2022

  100. [108]

    Space-time neural irradiance fields for free-viewpoint video

    Wenqi Xian, Jia-Bin Huang, Johannes Kopf, and Changil Kim. Space-time neural irradiance fields for free-viewpoint video. In CVPR, pages 9421–9431. IEEE, 6 2021. 2

    2021

  101. [109]

    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 Erik Brunvand, Alla Sheffer, and Michael Wimmer, editors, SIGGRAPH, pages 46:1...

    2023

  102. [110]

    3d gaus- sian splatting with deferred reflection

    Keyang Ye, Qiming Hou, and Kun Zhou. 3d gaus- sian splatting with deferred reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18454, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  103. [111]

    iNeRF: Invert- ing neural radiance fields for pose estimation

    Lin Yen-Chen, Pete Florence, Jonathan T Barron, Alberto Rodriguez, Phillip Isola, and Tsung-Yi Lin. iNeRF: Invert- ing neural radiance fields for pose estimation. In IROS, pages 1323–1330. IEEE, 9 2021. 2

    2021

  104. [112]

    Multi-space neural radiance fields

    Ze-Xin Yin, Jiaxiong Qiu, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Bo Ren. Multi-space neural radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 12407– 12416, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  105. [113]

    Mirror-nerf: Learn- ing neural radiance fields for mirrors with whitted-style ray tracing

    Junyi Zeng, Chong Bao, Rui Chen, Zilong Dong, Guofeng Zhang, Hujun Bao, and Zhaopeng Cui. Mirror-nerf: Learn- ing neural radiance fields for mirrors with whitted-style ray tracing. In MM, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2023

  106. [114]

    Physg: Inverse rendering with spherical gaussians for physics-based material editing and relighting

    Kai Zhang, Fujun Luan, Qianqian Wang, Kavita Bala, and Noah Snavely. Physg: Inverse rendering with spherical gaussians for physics-based material editing and relighting. In CVPR, pages 5453–5462, 2021. 3

    2021

  107. [115]

    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

    2010 arXiv

  108. [116]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    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, pages 586– 595, 2018. 6

    2018

  109. [117]

    NeRFusion: Fusing radiance fields for large- scale scene reconstruction

    Xiaoshuai Zhang, Sai Bi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Hao Su, and Zexiang Xu. NeRFusion: Fusing radiance fields for large- scale scene reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 5449–5458,

  110. [118]

    Nerflets: Local radiance fields for efficient structure-aware 3d scene representation from 2d supervision

    Xiaoshuai Zhang, Abhijit Kundu, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Hao Su, and Kyle Genova. Nerflets: Local radiance fields for efficient structure-aware 3d scene representation from 2d supervision. In CVPR, pages 8274– 8284, 2023. 2

    2023

  111. [119]

    Freeman, and Jonathan T

    Xiuming Zhang, Pratul P Srinivasan, Boyang Deng, Paul Debevec, William T. Freeman, and Jonathan T. Barron. Nerfactor: Neural factorization of shape and reflectance un- der an unknown illumination. TOG, 40(6):1–18, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  112. [120]

    Modeling indirect illumi- nation for inverse rendering

    Yuanqing Zhang, Jiaming Sun, Xingyi He, Huan Fu, Rongfei Jia, and Xiaowei Zhou. Modeling indirect illumi- nation for inverse rendering. InCVPR, pages 18643–18652,

  113. [121]

    Nemf: Inverse volume rendering with neural microflake field

    Youjia Zhang, Teng Xu, Junqing Yu, Yuteng Ye, Yanqing Jing, Junle Wang, Jingyi Yu, and Wei Yang. Nemf: Inverse volume rendering with neural microflake field. In ICCV, pages 22919–22929, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  114. [122]

    Factorized and controllable neural re- rendering of outdoor scene for photo extrapolation

    Boming Zhao, Bangbang Yang, Zhenyang Li, Zuoyue Li, Guofeng Zhang, Jiashu Zhao, Dawei Yin, Zhaopeng Cui, and Hujun Bao. Factorized and controllable neural re- rendering of outdoor scene for photo extrapolation. In MM, pages 1455–1464, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  115. [123]

    NICER-SLAM: Neural implicit scene encoding for RGB SLAM

    Zihan Zhu, Songyou Peng, Viktor Larsson, Zhaopeng Cui, Martin R Oswald, Andreas Geiger, and Marc Pollefeys. NICER-SLAM: Neural implicit scene encoding for RGB SLAM. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03594, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Nice-SLAM: Neural implicit scalable encoding for SLAM

    Zihan Zhu, Songyou Peng, Viktor Larsson, Weiwei Xu, Hu- jun Bao, Zhaopeng Cui, Martin R Oswald, and Marc Polle- feys. Nice-SLAM: Neural implicit scalable encoding for SLAM. In CVPR, pages 12786–12796. IEEE, 6 2022. 2

    2022

  117. [727]

    Wiley Online Library, Wiley, 5 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  118. [735]

    Wiley Online Library, Wiley, 5 2022. 1, 2

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.