Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Deep Mesh Reconstruction from Single RGB Images via Topology Modification Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sphere mesh can become a complex-topology object by alternating learned deformation with face pruning.

desk verdict A credible topology-by-pruning idea whose headline numbers are likely inflated by the CD metric artifact; deserves review but needs a control. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00321 v1 pith:K5RBKBCP submitted 2019-09-01 cs.CV

Junyi Pan , Xiaoguang Han , Weikai Chen , Jiapeng Tang , Kui Jia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords single-view3DreconstructionmeshdeformationtopologymodificationfacepruningboundaryrefinementShapeNetChamferdistancedeeplearning
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 solve a limitation of deformation-based mesh reconstruction: a single template such as a sphere cannot become a chair with holes by moving vertices alone, so reconstructed topology is stuck at the template's topology. Its proposed solution is an end-to-end framework that alternates per-vertex mesh deformation with a learned face-pruning step, allowing triangles with high estimated reconstruction error to be removed and the mesh's topology to evolve while remaining one connected surface. The central claim is that this progressive deformation-and-pruning loop generates high-quality meshes with complex topologies from a single genus-0 (sphere-like, hole-free) template. On five ShapeNet categories, the paper reports lower Chamfer and Earth mover's distances than the state-of-the-art deformation and multi-patch methods it compares against. If the claim holds, single-image mesh reconstruction no longer needs multiple stitched patches or a manually pre-matched template topology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the topology modification network, made of an error-estimation multi-layer perceptron and a face-pruning rule. The MLP takes the image feature vector concatenated with randomly sampled points on each triangle of the current mesh and regresses per-point distance to the ground-truth surface; averaging over the samples gives a per-face error. Faces with error above threshold $\tau$ are removed, with $\tau$ decreasing across subnets so pruning starts coarse and becomes precise. A boundary refinement network then moves boundary vertices inside their local tangent planes, and a zigzag regularizer penalizes boundary roughness. The whole system alternates deformation and pruning twice before boundary refinement, and is trained with Chamfer distance, an error-regression loss, the boundary regularizer, and standard mesh-smoothness losses.

What would settle it

Reconstruct a mug with a handle or a torus-like object from a single image and inspect the intermediate coarse mesh produced after only the first deformation stage. If the handle region is not already present as a high-error bulge before pruning, and the final mesh contains no closed handle loop, then the topology is not being created by face removal and the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that topology does not have to be fixed when the template is chosen. The network first deforms a sphere into a coarse approximation of the target, then a topology modification network estimates, for every triangle face, how far that face is from the ground-truth surface and deletes faces whose error exceeds a threshold. Iterating deformation and pruning opens holes and separates components progressively, and a boundary refinement network smooths the jagged edges left by pruning. On the five ShapeNet categories used in the experiments, Chamfer distance and Earth mover's distance are reported to be lower than N3MR, Pixel2Mesh, AtlasNet-25, and the method's own baseline without topology modification or boundary refinement.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after the first deformation stage, the sphere mesh is already a coarse but roughly correct version of the target, so the high-error faces that get pruned are exactly the places where topology must change; if the coarse shape is globally wrong, pruning cannot create the correct holes or branches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Objects with non-genus-zero topology, such as chairs and tables, can be reconstructed from an ordinary sphere mesh without stitching multiple patches.
  • The topology modification network is modular and can be inserted into other mesh-learning frameworks that currently keep connectivity fixed.
  • On the five ShapeNet categories tested, the method reports lower Chamfer distance and Earth mover's distance than N3MR, Pixel2Mesh, AtlasNet-25, and its own baseline without topology change.
  • After closing the open surfaces with Poisson surface reconstruction, the meshes remain more accurate than AtlasNet-25's post-processed outputs.
  • The same deformation-plus-pruning loop applies to shape autoencoding from point clouds, again outperforming AtlasNet-25.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that a learned or differentiable face-pruning threshold could replace the hand-set schedule, making the method adaptive to categories with very different error distributions.
  • If the coarse deformation stage is reliable, the same prune-after-deform idea should transfer to multi-view or depth-based reconstruction, where the input mesh already sits near the target and only topology needs correction.
  • Because outputs are open surfaces and need a separate Poisson step to close them, tying error-threshold pruning to an implicit-surface prediction could produce closed meshes directly and make the loop differentiable end-to-end.
  • The reported robustness to starting from a sphere or a unit square suggests the method is choosing where to remove material from the learned error field rather than from template-specific geometry; a stress test on shapes with several disconnected components would reveal how far that generalizes.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a single-view mesh reconstruction pipeline that starts from a genus-0 sphere template and alternates between mesh deformation and a learned topology-modification step. A deformation MLP predicts per-vertex offsets, an error-estimation network regresses per-face distances to the ground truth, and a progressive threshold-based face-pruning strategy removes high-error faces, enabling topological changes. A boundary-refinement module smooths the resulting open boundaries. The authors report quantitative CD/EMD gains over N3MR, Pixel2Mesh, AtlasNet-25, and a baseline on five ShapeNet categories, along with qualitative results and an autoencoding experiment.

Significance. The core idea—using a learned error predictor to guide face pruning so that a deformation-based reconstructor can change topology—is a genuine conceptual contribution. Prior deformation methods such as Pixel2Mesh and AtlasNet are confined to the template topology, and the proposed progressive deformation-plus-pruning framework is a natural way to address this. The paper also includes useful ablations (progressive shaping, pruning threshold, boundary refinement, initial-mesh robustness) and demonstrates plausibly better qualitative reconstructions on complex shapes. If the quantitative claims were clean, this would be a solid step for mesh-based single-view reconstruction. However, as detailed in the major comments, the evaluation is confounded by the metric design and lacks statistical rigor, so the central quantitative claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.2, Eq. (2), Table 1] The CD gains in Table 1 are confounded by the pruning operation itself. In Eq. (2), CD sums over sampled points from the generated mesh M and from the ground truth S. When a face with high estimated error is removed, its sampled points disappear from the first sum, so the first term drops by roughly the squared distance of those points to the ground truth; the second term cannot decrease when the set M shrinks and may increase. Because §3.2.2 removes exactly the faces with the largest estimated errors, the reported CD improvement over the Baseline is at least partly a mechanical artifact of discarding poorly reconstructed geometry, not evidence of better topology correction. No control separates these effects: there is no random-pruning comparison with the same number of removed faces, no oracle-error-pruning baseline, and no separate reporting of the two directional CD terms. The paper needs such a control, or a closed-surface evaluation on the full test set, to support the quantitative claim.
  2. [§4.1, Table 2] The only closed-mesh evaluation is limited to 20 randomly selected chair shapes and compares only Ours (PSR) with AtlasNet-25 (PSR). It does not compare with the Baseline or with the open-surface version of the method, and the small sample size cannot establish that the advantage persists after closing the surface. Since Section 5 concedes the method has the 'inherent drawback of producing non-closed meshes,' the claim of high-quality mesh reconstruction needs a broader closed-surface evaluation, ideally across all categories with the baseline included.
  3. [Table 1, experimental methodology] No error bars or statistical significance tests are reported. Several category-level improvements are very small (plane CD from 1.433 to 1.390; firearm from 1.145 to 1.142), so without variance estimates or paired tests across individual shapes, the claim of consistent improvement over all five categories is not robust. Per-shape paired comparisons or at least standard deviations across the test set should be reported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §3] The pipeline is described as 'end-to-end' in the abstract and Section 3, but the face-pruning operation in §3.2.2 is a discrete thresholding step that is not differentiable, and the error-estimation network is trained with a separate loss in Eq. (3). The term 'end-to-end' should be qualified or replaced with a more precise description of the training procedure.
  2. [§3.2.2] The face-pruning operation is not fully specified: it is unclear how removing a face affects its neighboring faces, whether boundary vertices are retained or collapsed, and what range of face counts survive after pruning for each category. This information is needed to understand the actual topology modifications.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The symbol E is used inconsistently: in Section 3 the mesh is defined as M=(V,E,T) with E the edge set, while in Eq. (1) E denotes the set of boundary vertices. Using a different symbol for one of these would avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure 9] The horizontal-axis label appears as 'Threshold( )' with the tau symbol missing; this should be corrected.
  5. [§4.3, Table 3] The autoencoding metrics in Table 3 are computed on the open-surface output of the method, but the text does not state whether PSR or another closing procedure is applied. This should be clarified so that a fair comparison with AtlasNet-25 is possible.
  6. [Additional comments] No code or trained models are released, which limits reproducibility of the quantitative results; providing them would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; learned error-prediction pruning is a trained component, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This paper reports no circular derivation. The pipeline is an encoder-decoder: deformations are predicted by an MLP, topology is modified by a separately trained error-estimation network that regresses per-point distances to ground truth, and boundaries are refined by another MLP. None of these components is defined in terms of the final evaluation numbers. The CD loss in Eq. (2) and the error loss in Eq. (3) do use the same nearest-neighbor distances, and Section 3.2.2 removes faces with large estimated error, but the estimated errors come from a learned network trained on ground-truth distances rather than from an analytic identity; the reported CD in Table 1 is computed on the output mesh, not read off from the error predictor. The self-citations, such as Residual MeshNet [24], are architectural precedents and are not load-bearing for the central claim; comparisons are made against external baselines such as AtlasNet, Pixel2Mesh, and N3MR on ShapeNet, and the PSR and autoencoding results provide additional external checks. The acknowledged open-surface limitation and the absence of a random-pruning control are experimental and correctness concerns, not circularity, because no equation in the paper defines the final reconstruction as equal to the fitted error predictor. Thus no step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical engineering result, so this ledger records design assumptions and hand-chosen hyperparameters rather than mathematical axioms. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are not derived from theory and directly shape the face-pruning behavior and training objective behind the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Face pruning threshold tau = 0.1 initial, halved per subnet
    Selected from validation-set Chamfer distance trade-off in Figure 9; directly controls how many faces are removed in each subnet and affects every reported result.
  • Loss weights lambda_1..lambda_5 = 1.0, 0.5, 1e-2, 2e-7, 0.1
    Hand-set weights for the composite loss in Equation 4; they balance deformation fidelity, error regression, boundary smoothing, and mesh regularizers.
  • Initial mesh resolution = sphere with 2562 vertices
    Hand-chosen starting template; the vertex count and sphere topology bound the deformation capacity and the granularity of face pruning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A single genus-0 sphere can be deformed close enough to the target that face pruning only has to remove localized high-error regions.
    The pipeline alternates deformation and pruning starting from a sphere; if the first deformation cannot roughly cover the target, the error-prediction and pruning stages cannot fix global topology. See Section 3.2 and Figure 2.
  • domain assumption Per-face reconstruction error can be learned from sampled points and generalizes from training to test shapes.
    The topology modification network uses an MLP to predict distances to the ground truth at test time; poor generalization would make pruning arbitrary. See Section 3.2.1.
  • domain assumption Chamfer distance and EMD on 10,000 sampled points, after ICP alignment, are faithful proxies for reconstruction quality.
    All quantitative superiority claims in Tables 1 and 2 rest on these metrics; they are standard but do not directly measure visual or topological correctness.
  • domain assumption The adopted AtlasNet evaluation protocol is a fair common benchmark for all compared methods.
    The paper reuses the ShapeNet setup of AtlasNet [9]; the comparison is only fair if that protocol favors no method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Mesh Reconstruction from Single RGB Images via Topology Modification Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5RBKBCP

@misc{pith2026190900321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Mesh Reconstruction from Single RGB Images via Topology Modification Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5RBKBCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00321}
}
read the original abstract

Reconstructing the 3D mesh of a general object from a single image is now possible thanks to the latest advances of deep learning technologies. However, due to the nontrivial difficulty of generating a feasible mesh structure, the state-of-the-art approaches often simplify the problem by learning the displacements of a template mesh that deforms it to the target surface. Though reconstructing a 3D shape with complex topology can be achieved by deforming multiple mesh patches, it remains difficult to stitch the results to ensure a high meshing quality. In this paper, we present an end-to-end single-view mesh reconstruction framework that is able to generate high-quality meshes with complex topologies from a single genus-0 template mesh. The key to our approach is a novel progressive shaping framework that alternates between mesh deformation and topology modification. While a deformation network predicts the per-vertex translations that reduce the gap between the reconstructed mesh and the ground truth, a novel topology modification network is employed to prune the error-prone faces, enabling the evolution of topology. By iterating over the two procedures, one can progressively modify the mesh topology while achieving higher reconstruction accuracy. Moreover, a boundary refinement network is designed to refine the boundary conditions to further improve the visual quality of the reconstructed mesh. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods both qualitatively and quantitatively, especially for the shapes with complex topologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00321 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a single image of an object (a) as input, the exist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our pipeline. Given an input image, we first employ multiple mesh deformation and topology modification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Topology Modification Network. The red color indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results. (a) Input image; (b) N3MR; (c) Pixel2Mesh; (d) AtlasNet-25; (e) Baseline; (f) Ours; (g) Ground truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison with AtlasNet-25 after PSR. (a): [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results with different initial meshes. (a): In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study on progressive shaping. (a): Input im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effect of τ values on Chamfer distance, distance from GT to prediction, and distance from prediction to GT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative results of 3D shape autoencoding. (a): [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation study on boundary refinement. (a): Input im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning representations and generative models for 3d point clouds

    Panos Achlioptas, Olga Diamanti, Ioannis Mitliagkas, and Leonidas Guibas. Learning representations and generative models for 3d point clouds. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 40–49, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    A method for registration of 3-d shapes

    PJ Besl and Neil D McKay. A method for registration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2):239–256, 1992

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository

    Angel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, et al. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012, 2015

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Deep RBFNet: Point Cloud Feature Learning using Radial Basis Functions

    Weikai Chen, Xiaoguang Han, Guanbin Li, Chao Chen, Jun Xing, Yajie Zhao, and Hao Li. Deep rbfnet: Point cloud feature learning using radial basis functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04302, 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Learning implicit fields for generative shape modeling.Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019

    Zhiqin Chen and Hao Zhang. Learning implicit fields for generative shape modeling.Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction

    Christopher B Choy, Danfei Xu, JunYoung Gwak, Kevin Chen, and Silvio Savarese. 3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction. In Pro- ceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 628–644. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Haoqiang Fan, Hao Su, and Leonidas J. Guibas. A point set generation network for 3d object reconstruction from a single image. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2463–2471, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis

    Yasutaka Furukawa and Jean Ponce. Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 32(8):1362–1376, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Kim, Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry

    Thibault Groueix, Matthew Fisher, Vladimir G. Kim, Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry. AtlasNet: A Papier-M ˆach´e Approach to Learning 3D Surface Generation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 216–224, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    High-resolution shape com- pletion using deep neural networks for global structure and local geometry inference

    Xiaoguang Han, Zhen Li, Haibin Huang, Evangelos Kalogerakis, and Yizhou Yu. High-resolution shape com- pletion using deep neural networks for global structure and local geometry inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pages 85–93, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision . Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Deep volumetric video from very sparse multi-view perfor- mance capture

    Zeng Huang, Tianye Li, Weikai Chen, Yajie Zhao, Jun Xing, Chloe LeGendre, Linjie Luo, Chongyang Ma, and Hao Li. Deep volumetric video from very sparse multi-view perfor- mance capture. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 336–354, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Unsupervised learning of shape and pose with differentiable point clouds

    Eldar Insafutdinov and Alexey Dosovitskiy. Unsupervised learning of shape and pose with differentiable point clouds. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2802–2812, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Learning category-specific mesh reconstruc- tion from image collections

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Shubham Tulsiani, Alexei A Efros, and Jitendra Malik. Learning category-specific mesh reconstruc- tion from image collections. In Proceedings of the Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 371– 386, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Neu- ral 3d mesh renderer

    Hiroharu Kato, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. Neu- ral 3d mesh renderer. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3907– 3916, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Screened poisson sur- face reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan and Hugues Hoppe. Screened poisson sur- face reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 32(3):29, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Learning efficient point cloud generation for dense 3d object recon- struction

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Chen Kong, and Simon Lucey. Learning efficient point cloud generation for dense 3d object recon- struction. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Soft ras- terizer: A differentiable renderer for image-based 3d reason- ing

    Shichen Liu, Tianye Li, Weikai Chen, and Hao Li. Soft ras- terizer: A differentiable renderer for image-based 3d reason- ing. The IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Oct 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    3D-LMNet: Latent embedding matching for accurate and diverse 3d point cloud reconstruction from a single image

    Priyanka Mandikal, K L Navaneet, Mayank Agarwal, and R Venkatesh Babu. 3D-LMNet: Latent embedding matching for accurate and diverse 3d point cloud reconstruction from a single image. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space

    Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, Michael Niemeyer, Se- bastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space. In Proceed- ings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Deep level sets: Implicit surface representations for 3d shape inference

    Mateusz Michalkiewicz, Jhony K Pontes, Dominic Jack, Mahsa Baktashmotlagh, and Anders Eriksson. Deep level sets: Implicit surface representations for 3d shape inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06802, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Siclope: Silhouette-based clothed people

    Ryota Natsume, Shunsuke Saito, Zeng Huang, Weikai Chen, Chongyang Ma, Hao Li, and Shigeo Morishima. Siclope: Silhouette-based clothed people. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4480–4490, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Resid- ual meshnet: Learning to deform meshes for single-view 3d reconstruction

    Junyi Pan, Jun Li, Xiaoguang Han, and Kui Jia. Resid- ual meshnet: Learning to deform meshes for single-view 3d reconstruction. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 719–727, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Image2mesh: A learning framework for single image 3d reconstruction

    Jhony K Pontes, Chen Kong, Sridha Sridharan, Simon Lucey, Anders Eriksson, and Clinton Fookes. Image2mesh: A learning framework for single image 3d reconstruction. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision , pages 365–381, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Machine perception of three- dimensional solids

    Lawrence G Roberts. Machine perception of three- dimensional solids. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1963

    1963

  20. [28]

    Pix3d: Dataset and methods for single-image 3d shape modeling

    Xingyuan Sun, Jiajun Wu, Xiuming Zhang, Zhoutong Zhang, Chengkai Zhang, Tianfan Xue, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and William T Freeman. Pix3d: Dataset and methods for single-image 3d shape modeling. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , page...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Octree generating networks: Efficient convolutional archi- tectures for high-resolution 3d outputs

    Maxim Tatarchenko, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Thomas Brox. Octree generating networks: Efficient convolutional archi- tectures for high-resolution 3d outputs. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2088–2096, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Multi-view supervision for single-view re- construction via differentiable ray consistency

    Shubham Tulsiani, Tinghui Zhou, Alexei A Efros, and Ji- tendra Malik. Multi-view supervision for single-view re- construction via differentiable ray consistency. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2626–2634, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Bodynet: V olu- metric inference of 3d human body shapes

    Gul Varol, Duygu Ceylan, Bryan Russell, Jimei Yang, Ersin Yumer, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. Bodynet: V olu- metric inference of 3d human body shapes. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 20–36, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Pixel2mesh: Generating 3d mesh models from single rgb images

    Nanyang Wang, Yinda Zhang, Zhuwen Li, Yanwei Fu, Wei Liu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Pixel2mesh: Generating 3d mesh models from single rgb images. In Proceedings of the Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 52–67, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    High-fidelity facial reflectance and geometry infer- ence from an unconstrained image

    Shuco Yamaguchi, Shunsuke Saito, Koki Nagano, Yajie Zhao, Weikai Chen, Kyle Olszewski, Shigeo Morishima, and Hao Li. High-fidelity facial reflectance and geometry infer- ence from an unconstrained image. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4):162, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Perspective transformer nets: Learning single- view 3d object reconstruction without 3d supervision

    Xinchen Yan, Jimei Yang, Ersin Yumer, Yijie Guo, and Honglak Lee. Perspective transformer nets: Learning single- view 3d object reconstruction without 3d supervision. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1696–1704, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Fold- ingnet: Point cloud auto-encoder via deep grid deformation

    Yaoqing Yang, Chen Feng, Yiru Shen, and Dong Tian. Fold- ingnet: Point cloud auto-encoder via deep grid deformation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 206–215, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Hairnet: Single-view hair reconstruc- tion using convolutional neural networks

    Yi Zhou, Liwen Hu, Jun Xing, Weikai Chen, Han-Wei Kung, Xin Tong, and Hao Li. Hairnet: Single-view hair reconstruc- tion using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 235–251, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.