Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Blurred LiDAR for Sharper 3D: Robust Handheld 3D Scanning with Diffuse LiDAR and RGB

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Diffuse (blurred) LiDAR combined with RGB can reconstruct 3D scenes more accurately than conventional point-grid LiDAR when only a few views are available.

desk verdict Diffuse LiDAR plus RGB in a surfel framework is a fresh and plausible idea, but the headline comparison to sparse LiDAR rests on a weak 8x8 baseline and a circular synthetic evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19474 v1 pith:MCKX4PLB submitted 2024-11-29 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Nikhil Behari , Aaron Young , Siddharth Somasundaram , Tzofi Klinghoffer , Akshat Dave , Ramesh Raskar This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords diffuseLiDARtransienthistogramsGaussiansurfels3Dreconstructionsensorfusionscene-adaptivelosshandheldscanninglimitedviews
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 argues that a 'blurred' LiDAR—one that emits a diffuse flash and records each pixel as a time-of-flight histogram spanning a wide field of view—can beat the sparse point-grid LiDARs now found in phones, provided it is fused with RGB. The reason is coverage: a wide-field pixel captures many scene points at once, so a coarse 8 by 8 sensor can supervise geometry across an entire scene, while a sparse LiDAR leaves gaps that never get filled when only a handful of views are available. The authors build a Gaussian-surfel renderer that synthesizes both RGB images and transient histograms, and a scene-adaptive loss that leans on RGB where it has texture and signal, and on LiDAR where it does not. If the claim holds, handheld 3D scanning becomes more reliable exactly in the conditions that break camera-only reconstruction: low texture, low light, and low albedo.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is a Gaussian surfel scene representation—surfaces built from flattened, oriented 2D Gaussians—rendered through differentiable alpha-compositing into both RGB images and transient histograms. Transient rendering works by sampling rays within each wide-IFOV LiDAR pixel, projecting each surfel's depth into a time bin, and soft-binning the contribution so gradients flow. Around this renderer sits a scene-adaptive loss: each RGB patch is scored by texture variance and signal-to-noise ratio, and the final loss weights RGB L1 plus SSIM by that score while weighting the transient KL divergence by its complement. This per-patch reweighting is what lets the optimizer dynamically choose the sensor that is informative at each location, which is the mechanism that converts diffuse LiDAR coverage into sharper depth, normals, and meshes.

What would settle it

On a fixed textured-object/textureless-plane scene, sweep the number of training views from 2 to 30 and record depth MAE for RGB plus sparse LiDAR versus RGB plus diffuse LiDAR; if sparse LiDAR reaches parity at or below the 10-view regime, the claimed limited-view advantage does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the spatial blur of diffuse LiDAR is not a defect to be removed but a coverage advantage to be exploited. A diffuse LiDAR pixel integrates time-of-flight returns from every surface in its instantaneous field of view, so a low-resolution 8 by 8 sensor still sees the whole scene; the mixed returns are disentangled by rendering predicted transients from a Gaussian surfel scene and comparing them to measured histograms. RGB supplies the dense spatial and color structure that resolves the per-pixel depth ambiguity. A scene-adaptive loss computes per-patch texture variance and signal-to-noise ratio to decide, patch by patch, whether RGB or LiDAR should dominate: textured high-SNR patches rely on RGB, while textureless, dark, or low-albedo patches fall back on LiDAR. In simulated scenes at 10 training views, this combination cuts depth error roughly in half or better relative to RGB plus sparse LiDAR and, in no-texture scenes, reaches depth MAE around 0.04 versus roughly 0.11 for sparse LiDAR; real captures at 90 views show improved object-plane separation. The paper also shows analytically that increasing LiDAR pixel field of view raises the rank of the linear measurement operator when views are scarce, which is why blur helps precisely in the few-view regime.

Load-bearing premise

The entire pipeline assumes that accurate per-frame camera poses can be obtained from RGB alone (via COLMAP), which may fail in the textureless and low-light scenes the method targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In limited-view scans with 10 training views, diffuse LiDAR improves depth and normal estimation over sparse LiDAR across full, mixed, and no-texture scenes, with no-texture depth MAE roughly three times lower.
  • The scene-adaptive loss automatically down-weights RGB as its SNR degrades, so depth estimation stays stable from high light down to noise levels that fully obscure RGB cues.
  • Diffuse LiDAR alone, without RGB, beats both sparse point LiDAR and sparse histogram LiDAR under the same low-resolution capture setup.
  • On real handheld captures with 90 views, the method improves object-plane separation and geometry in low-texture, low-light, low-albedo settings.
  • The recoverability analysis shows that wider IFOV raises the linear measurement matrix rank when views are scarce, so the benefit is specifically a limited-view phenomenon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this, but the coverage advantage should shrink as view count grows; a view-count sweep would reveal the crossover at which sparse LiDAR's precise points catch up.
  • The scene-adaptive weights could double as a per-patch confidence map, guiding downstream tasks that need to know whether the geometry is backed by RGB or LiDAR evidence.
  • Because pose estimation currently comes from RGB alone, extending the framework to use diffuse LiDAR transients for pose initialization or refinement would attack the main remaining failure mode in fully textureless scenes.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a diffuse-LiDAR-plus-RGB framework for handheld 3D scanning, targeting low-texture, low-light, and low-albedo scenes. The authors render transient histograms from a wide-IFOV SPAD sensor in a Gaussian-surfel representation, and introduce a scene-adaptive loss that down-weights RGB where texture or SNR is low and up-weights the LiDAR transient loss. They claim that diffuse LiDAR outperforms conventional sparse point LiDAR when the number of views is limited, supported by a rank-based recoverability analysis, synthetic evaluations on four scenes with four texture variations, and qualitative real-world captures.

Significance. If the comparative claim survives stronger validation, the work is significant: it challenges the assumption that pointwise sparse LiDAR is the preferred depth modality for handheld fusion, and it provides a differentiable transient rendering pipeline and an adaptive loss that could be reused in other sensor-fusion settings. The recoverability analysis and the LiDAR-only ablation (Table 2) are useful contributions. However, the current evidence is weakened by the closed-loop synthetic evaluation, the underpowered 8x8 sparse-LiDAR baseline, and the absence of quantitative real-world comparison, so the practical significance is not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Eqs. (10)-(12)] The simulated experiments in Sec. 5.1 render RGB and 8x8 diffuse LiDAR histograms using the image formation model described in Sec. 4 (Eqs. 10-12), and then evaluate the reconstruction against that same model. This makes the quantitative gains partly a measure of internal consistency with the assumed forward model, not of external validity. The real-world experiments in Sec. 5.2 provide only qualitative comparisons, and the sparse-LiDAR baseline is simulated by subsampling D435i depth maps, so they do not break the circularity. Please add either a real sparse-LiDAR sensor as a baseline or a quantitative validation of the forward model against the real hardware, and include a sensitivity analysis over forward-model parameters.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Table 1] The sparse LiDAR baseline is explicitly '8x8 points located at the center of each diffuse LiDAR pixel zone' (Sec. 5.1). This gives the sparse baseline only 64 depth points per view, which is far below the density of commercial handheld LiDARs. The recoverability analysis in Sec. 3.2 also fixes the number of measurements, so it does not separate sensor modality from spatial sampling density. As a result, the headline claim that diffuse LiDAR outperforms sparse LiDAR is not established for representative sparse-LiDAR densities. Please report results for denser sparse grids (e.g., 16x16, 32x32, 64x64) in Table 1 and Fig. 3, and identify the density at which the comparison changes.
  3. [Sec. 4, Table 1d] The paper states in Sec. 4 that COLMAP is used to obtain the camera intrinsics and per-frame extrinsics, but Table 1d presents results on completely textureless scenes, where COLMAP cannot estimate poses. The manuscript does not disclose the pose source for these experiments. Since the claimed robustness in no-texture scenes is a central contribution, please specify how poses were obtained for each dataset (e.g., ground-truth camera trajectories, known synthetic poses, or a LiDAR-based pose estimator) and discuss whether the method remains applicable when RGB-based pose estimation fails.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 3] The recoverability analysis in Sec. 3.2 relies on an approximate linear model y = Ax, with details deferred to the Supplementary, which is not included. The rank claims in Fig. 3 are load-bearing for the motivation, so the model should be specified in the main text or an available supplement, and its relationship to the nonlinear transient rendering model in Eqs. (10)-(12) should be justified. In addition, the statement that the analysis is performed in 2D 'without loss of generality' needs justification, since the rank behavior may differ in 3D.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says 'as RGB input SNR increases' but the text describes relying more on diffuse LiDAR as SNR decreases; the caption appears to have the direction reversed.
  2. [Eq. (13), Sec. 4.2] The sigmoid hyperparameters a, b, and k are not reported anywhere; please provide their values and note whether they are fixed across all experiments.
  3. [Table 1] The table does not define the units of D.MAE and N.MAE; please specify (e.g., meters for depth, degrees for normals).
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The paper claims low-bandwidth advantages for diffuse LiDAR, but no concrete bandwidth comparison (e.g., number of histogram bins versus number of LiDAR points) is quantified; please provide a representative comparison.
  5. [Sec. 5.2] The RGB-LiDAR extrinsics calibration procedure is not described; please explain how the relative pose between the two sensors was obtained for the real captures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is supported by an explicit recoverability model, controlled synthetic inverse rendering, and independent real-world captures, with no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The recoverability analysis in Sec. 3.2 posits an explicit linear map y = Ax and computes matrix rank for diffuse versus sparse LiDAR as a function of views; this is a direct mathematical consequence of the stated model, not a result that is presupposed by the method. The synthetic experiments in Sec. 5.1 generate transient histograms using the same differentiable rasterizer (Eqs. 10-12) that the reconstruction uses, which is a limitation in external validity (an 'inverse crime' style closed loop), but the depth and normal estimates are still the output of a non-convex optimization over Gaussian surfels, not algebraically equal to the input measurements; the sparse-LiDAR baseline is an explicit 8x8 point supervision, so the comparison is a controlled sensor-information study rather than a tautology. Real-world captures with an AMS TMF8828 sensor in Fig. 7 provide independent qualitative grounding. Self-citations such as [36] (view-count dependence of transients) are motivational and not load-bearing for the central claim. The stated assumption of RGB-based poses via COLMAP is a robustness limitation, not a circular step.

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

The method leans on a set of modeling and approximation choices: a surfel-based scene representation from prior work, a geometry-only LiDAR forward model, COLMAP poses, and a linearized recoverability analysis. The scene-adaptive loss introduces at least three unreported hyperparameters. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • sigmoid steepness k (Eq. 13)
    Controls how sharply the patch weight switches between RGB and LiDAR; value not given in the main text, presumably tuned on validation data.
  • sigmoid offset parameters a and b (Eq. 13)
    Set the SNR-dependent threshold epsilon = a*wsnr + b for the patch weight; values not reported.
  • lambda_SSIM (Eq. 14)
    Balances the L1 and SSIM terms in the RGB loss; value not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian surfel representation and alpha-compositing rendering are an adequate scene model (Eq. 3-9, from [5]).
    The method builds on Gaussian Surfels without deriving or testing the representational capacity on the target scenes; failures of this representation would limit reconstruction quality.
  • ad hoc to paper The diffuse LiDAR transient histogram is a function of geometry alone and is independent of surface albedo, BRDF, and multiple scattering (Eq. 2, 10-12).
    The forward model weights each surfel only by opacity and ignores reflectance and ambient light; the KL loss (Eq. 15) normalizes amplitudes, so the histogram shape is assumed to encode depth distribution. This is a strong simplification for low-albedo or varying-albedo scenes.
  • domain assumption COLMAP provides accurate camera poses from RGB (Sec. 4).
    Explicitly assumed in the Scope; it fails in the low-texture and low-light regime the paper targets unless poses are obtained otherwise.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear model y = Ax approximates the recoverability of the nonlinear inverse problem (Sec. 3.2).
    The rank of A for a voxelized linear model is used to conclude that diffuse LiDAR improves recoverability; the connection to the actual nonlinear optimization is not established in the main text (details are deferred to the supplement).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blurred LiDAR for Sharper 3D: Robust Handheld 3D Scanning with Diffuse LiDAR and RGB." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCKX4PLB

@misc{pith2026241119474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blurred LiDAR for Sharper 3D: Robust Handheld 3D Scanning with Diffuse LiDAR and RGB},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCKX4PLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19474}
}
read the original abstract

3D surface reconstruction is essential across applications of virtual reality, robotics, and mobile scanning. However, RGB-based reconstruction often fails in low-texture, low-light, and low-albedo scenes. Handheld LiDARs, now common on mobile devices, aim to address these challenges by capturing depth information from time-of-flight measurements of a coarse grid of projected dots. Yet, these sparse LiDARs struggle with scene coverage on limited input views, leaving large gaps in depth information. In this work, we propose using an alternative class of "blurred" LiDAR that emits a diffuse flash, greatly improving scene coverage but introducing spatial ambiguity from mixed time-of-flight measurements across a wide field of view. To handle these ambiguities, we propose leveraging the complementary strengths of diffuse LiDAR with RGB. We introduce a Gaussian surfel-based rendering framework with a scene-adaptive loss function that dynamically balances RGB and diffuse LiDAR signals. We demonstrate that, surprisingly, diffuse LiDAR can outperform traditional sparse LiDAR, enabling robust 3D scanning with accurate color and geometry estimation in challenging environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19474 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Blurred LiDAR for Sharper 3D: We propose leveraging (a) the complementary strengths of RGB with a diffuse (blurred) Li￾DAR for robust handheld scanning (b) on limited views in challenging low-texture, low-light, low-albedo scenes. Our method dynamically balances RGB and diffuse LiDAR sensor inputs to estimate (c) precise color, depth, and normals, from which we can (d) reconstruct accu￾rate color-3D meshes. Our appr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diffuse LiDAR + RGB for surface reconstruction. (a) Sparse (conventional) LiDAR vs Diffuse LiDAR. Sparse LiDAR projects a grid of points which enable precise timing returns corresponding to individual depths; alternatively, diffuse LiDAR projects a diffuse flash illumination and measures the returns over a wide per-pixel instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV), increasing spatial coverage but also ambiguity in inferred d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Improved recoverability with diffuse LiDAR when input views are limited. Full rank is 900 in our analysis sim￾ulation. Diffuse LiDAR has greater voxel coverage than con￾ventional sparse LiDAR; this greater coverage can improve rank, and thereby recoverability, when using a limited number of input views. We consider this specific limited-view domain in this work. As the number of input views increases, sparse LiDAR c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inverse rendering with RGB and diffuse LiDAR. We consider a compact hardware setting with co-located RGB camera and diffuse LiDAR. At each view, we capture an (a) RGB image and coarse (8 × 8) histograms, for which each pixel contains mixed signal from a wide IFOV ω. We…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on rendered scenes with varying texture. We enable (a) accurate RGB novel-view synthesis on full-texture scenes, where RGB may be prioritized by our adaptive loss. When (b) textured objects are on textureless planes, we enable greater object-pla…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Robust depth (MAE ↓) of our method in low lighting. We simulate low lighting with added Gaussian noise; our scene￾adaptive loss weighting can be used to to rely on diffuse LiDAR inputs more heavily as RGB input SNR increases, enabling robust depth estimation across a w…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons of real data captures. We improve mesh reconstruction in challenging real-world scenes on few (90) inputs. RGB with sparse LiDAR fails to separate object and plane due to low albedo and poor spatial coverage, while our diffuse LiDAR improves bou…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    TMF882X Datasheet

    AMS OSRAM AG. TMF882X Datasheet. https:// ams-osram.com/, n.d. 8

    work page

  2. [2]

    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. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 34:26289–26301, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Radar fields: Frequency-space neural scene representa- tions for fmcw radar

    David Borts, Erich Liang, Tim Broedermann, Andrea Ra- mazzina, Stefanie Walz, Edoardo Palladin, Jipeng Sun, David Brueggemann, Christos Sakaridis, Luc Van Gool, et al. Radar fields: Frequency-space neural scene representa- tions for fmcw radar. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–10, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation. Sony semicon- ductor solutions to release spad depth sensor for smartphones with high-accuracy, low-power distance measurement per- formance, powered by the industry’s highest photon detec- tion efficiency, 2023. https://www.sony-semicon. com/en/news/2023/2023030601.html. 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    High-quality surface recon- struction using gaussian surfels

    Pinxuan Dai, Jiamin Xu, Wenxiang Xie, Xinguo Liu, Huamin Wang, and Weiwei Xu. High-quality surface recon- struction using gaussian surfels. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12882– 12891, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [7]

    Non-line-of-sight imaging

    Daniele Faccio, Andreas Velten, and Gordon Wetzstein. Non-line-of-sight imaging. Nature Reviews Physics , 2(6): 318–327, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Nlos-neus: Non-line-of-sight neural im- plicit surface

    Yuki Fujimura, Takahiro Kushida, Takuya Funatomi, and Ya- suhiro Mukaigawa. Nlos-neus: Non-line-of-sight neural im- plicit surface. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10532–10541, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Epi-naf: En- hancing neural attenuation fields for limited-angle ct with epipolar consistency conditions, 2024

    Daniel Gilo, Tzofi Klinghoffer, and Or Litany. Epi-naf: En- hancing neural attenuation fields for limited-angle ct with epipolar consistency conditions, 2024. 2

    2024

  2. [10]

    Non-line-of-sight imaging with partial occluders and surface normals

    Felix Heide, Matthew O’Toole, Kai Zang, David B Lindell, Steven Diamond, and Gordon Wetzstein. Non-line-of-sight imaging with partial occluders and surface normals. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 38(3):1–10, 2019. 2

    2019

  3. [11]

    Neural lidar fields for novel view synthesis

    Shengyu Huang, Zan Gojcic, Zian Wang, Francis Williams, Yoni Kasten, Sanja Fidler, Konrad Schindler, and Or Litany. Neural lidar fields for novel view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 18236–18246, 2023. 2

    2023

  4. [12]

    Depth fields: Extending light field techniques to time-of-flight imaging

    Suren Jayasuriya, Adithya Pediredla, Sriram Sivaramakrish- nan, Alyosha Molnar, and Ashok Veeraraghavan. Depth fields: Extending light field techniques to time-of-flight imaging. In 2015 International Conference on 3D Vision , pages 1–9. IEEE, 2015. 2

    2015

  5. [13]

    Radiance fields from photons

    Sacha Jungerman and Mohit Gupta. Radiance fields from photons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09386, 2024. 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    3d scene inference from transient histograms

    Sacha Jungerman, Atul Ingle, Yin Li, and Mohit Gupta. 3d scene inference from transient histograms. InEuropean Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 401–417. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  7. [15]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

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

  8. [16]

    Looking around the corner using transient imaging

    Ahmed Kirmani, Tyler Hutchison, James Davis, and Ramesh Raskar. Looking around the corner using transient imaging. In 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 159–166. IEEE, 2009. 2

    2009

  9. [17]

    Platonerf: 3d reconstruction in plato’s cave via single-view two-bounce lidar

    Tzofi Klinghoffer, Xiaoyu Xiang, Siddharth Somasundaram, Yuchen Fan, Christian Richardt, Ramesh Raskar, and Rakesh Ranjan. Platonerf: 3d reconstruction in plato’s cave via single-view two-bounce lidar. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Re...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Caspi: collaborative photon processing for active single-photon imaging

    Jongho Lee, Atul Ingle, Jenu V Chacko, Kevin W Eliceiri, and Mohit Gupta. Caspi: collaborative photon processing for active single-photon imaging. Nature Communications, 14(1):3158, 2023. 2

    2023

  11. [19]

    Deltar: Depth estimation from a light-weight tof sensor and rgb im- age

    Yijin Li, Xinyang Liu, Wenqi Dong, Han Zhou, Hujun Bao, Guofeng Zhang, Yinda Zhang, and Zhaopeng Cui. Deltar: Depth estimation from a light-weight tof sensor and rgb im- age. In European conference on computer vision, pages 619–

  12. [20]

    The sounds of a helicopter on mars

    Ralph D Lorenz, Sylvestre Maurice, Baptiste Chide, David Mimoun, Alexander Stott, Naomi Murdoch, Martin Giller, Xavier Jacob, Roger C Wiens, Franck Montmessin, et al. The sounds of a helicopter on mars. Planetary and Space Science, 230:105684, 2023. 1

    2023

  13. [21]

    Transien- tangelo: Few-viewpoint surface reconstruction using single- photon lidar

    Weihan Luo, Anagh Malik, and David B Lindell. Transien- tangelo: Few-viewpoint surface reconstruction using single- photon lidar. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12191, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Flying with photons: Rendering novel views of propagating light

    Anagh Malik, Noah Juravsky, Ryan Po, Gordon Wetzstein, Kiriakos N Kutulakos, and David B Lindell. Flying with photons: Rendering novel views of propagating light. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06493, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Transient neural radiance fields for lidar view synthesis and 3d reconstruction

    Anagh Malik, Parsa Mirdehghan, Sotiris Nousias, Kyros Ku- tulakos, and David Lindell. Transient neural radiance fields for lidar view synthesis and 3d reconstruction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2, 6, 8

    2024

  16. [24]

    Floatingfusion: Depth from tof and image- stabilized stereo cameras

    Andreas Meuleman, Hakyeong Kim, James Tompkin, and Min H Kim. Floatingfusion: Depth from tof and image- stabilized stereo cameras. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 602–618. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  17. [25]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- 9 thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- 9 thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Physics to the rescue: Deep non-line-of-sight re- construction for high-speed imaging

    Fangzhou Mu, Sicheng Mo, Jiayong Peng, Xiaochun Liu, Ji Hyun Nam, Siddeshwar Raghavan, Andreas Velten, and Yin Li. Physics to the rescue: Deep non-line-of-sight re- construction for high-speed imaging. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2022. 2

    2022

  19. [27]

    Towards 3d vision with low-cost single-photon cameras

    Fangzhou Mu, Carter Sifferman, Sacha Jungerman, Yiquan Li, Mark Han, Michael Gleicher, Mohit Gupta, and Yin Li. Towards 3d vision with low-cost single-photon cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 5302–5311, 2024. 3

    2024

  20. [28]

    Flowed time of flight radiance fields

    Mikhail Okunev, Marc Mapeke, Benjamin Attal, Christian Richardt, Matthew O’Toole, and James Tompkin. Flowed time of flight radiance fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 373–389. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  21. [29]

    Reconstructing transient images from single-photon sensors

    Matthew O’Toole, Felix Heide, David B Lindell, Kai Zang, Steven Diamond, and Gordon Wetzstein. Reconstructing transient images from single-photon sensors. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1539–1547, 2017. 2

    2017

  22. [30]

    Aoneus: A neural rendering framework for acoustic-optical sensor fusion

    Mohamad Qadri, Kevin Zhang, Akshay Hinduja, Michael Kaess, Adithya Pediredla, and Christopher A Metzler. Aoneus: A neural rendering framework for acoustic-optical sensor fusion. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–12, 2024. 2

    2024

  23. [31]

    The iPhone 12—LiDAR at your fin- gertips, 2020

    Sabbir Rangwala. The iPhone 12—LiDAR at your fin- gertips, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ sabbirrangwala / 2020 / 11 / 12 / the - iphone - 12lidar-at-your-fingertips/ . 2

    2020

  24. [32]

    Seeing around corners using time of flight

    Ramesh Raskar, Andreas Velten, Sebastian Bauer, and Tris- tan Swedish. Seeing around corners using time of flight. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Courses , pages 1–97. Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. 2

    2020

  25. [33]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4104–4113, 2016. 2, 4

    2016

  26. [34]

    Non-line-of- sight imaging via neural transient fields

    Siyuan Shen, Zi Wang, Ping Liu, Zhengqing Pan, Ruiqian Li, Tian Gao, Shiying Li, and Jingyi Yu. Non-line-of- sight imaging via neural transient fields. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 43(7):2257– 2268, 2021. 2

    2021

  27. [35]

    Unlocking the performance of proximity sensors by utilizing transient histograms

    Carter Sifferman, Yeping Wang, Mohit Gupta, and Michael Gleicher. Unlocking the performance of proximity sensors by utilizing transient histograms. IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters, 2023. 3

    2023

  28. [36]

    Role of tran- sients in two-bounce non-line-of-sight imaging

    Siddharth Somasundaram, Akshat Dave, Connor Henley, Ashok Veeraraghavan, and Ramesh Raskar. Role of tran- sients in two-bounce non-line-of-sight imaging. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9192–9201, 2023. 4

    2023

  29. [37]

    D ¨arf: Boosting radiance fields from sparse input views with monocular depth adaptation

    Jiuhn Song, Seonghoon Park, Honggyu An, Seokju Cho, Min-Seop Kwak, Sungjin Cho, and Seungryong Kim. D ¨arf: Boosting radiance fields from sparse input views with monocular depth adaptation. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36:68458–68470, 2023. 2

    2023

  30. [38]

    Consis- tent direct time-of-flight video depth super-resolution

    Zhanghao Sun, Wei Ye, Jinhui Xiong, Gyeongmin Choe, Jialiang Wang, Shuochen Su, and Rakesh Ranjan. Consis- tent direct time-of-flight video depth super-resolution. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5075–5085, 2023. 3

    2023

  31. [39]

    LiDAR technology in Apple Vision Pro, 2024

    TechInsights. LiDAR technology in Apple Vision Pro, 2024. https://www.techinsights.com/blog/lidar- technology-apple-vision-pro . 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    Recovering three-dimensional shape around a corner using ultrafast time-of-flight imaging

    Andreas Velten, Thomas Willwacher, Otkrist Gupta, Ashok Veeraraghavan, Moungi G Bawendi, and Ramesh Raskar. Recovering three-dimensional shape around a corner using ultrafast time-of-flight imaging. Nature communications, 3 (1):745, 2012. 2

    2012

  33. [41]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dynamic lidar re- simulation using compositional neural fields

    Hanfeng Wu, Xingxing Zuo, Stefan Leutenegger, Or Litany, Konrad Schindler, and Shengyu Huang. Dynamic lidar re- simulation using compositional neural fields. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 19988–19998, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    A theory of fermat paths for non- line-of-sight shape reconstruction

    Shumian Xin, Sotiris Nousias, Kiriakos N Kutulakos, Aswin C Sankaranarayanan, Srinivasa G Narasimhan, and Ioannis Gkioulekas. A theory of fermat paths for non- line-of-sight shape reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognit...

    2019

  36. [44]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10371–10381, 2024. 7

    2024

  37. [45]

    V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, 34:4805–4815, 2021. 1

    2021

  38. [46]

    Nerf-lidar: Generating realistic lidar point clouds with neural radiance fields

    Junge Zhang, Feihu Zhang, Shaochen Kuang, and Li Zhang. Nerf-lidar: Generating realistic lidar point clouds with neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 7178–7186, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [47]

    First arrival differential lidar

    Tianyi Zhang, Mel J White, Akshat Dave, Shahaboddin Gha- jari, Ankit Raghuram, Alyosha C Molnar, and Ashok Veer- araghavan. First arrival differential lidar. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP), pages 1–12. IEEE, 2022. 3

    2022

  40. [48]

    Ewa volume splatting

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross. Ewa volume splatting. In Proceedings Visu- alization, 2001. VIS’01., pages 29–538. IEEE, 2001. 5 10

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.