Efficient Space Skipping and Adaptive Sampling of Unstructured Volumes Using Hardware Accelerated Ray Tracing

Ingo Wald; Nathan Morrical; Valerio Pascucci; Will Usher

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Efficient Space Skipping and Adaptive Sampling of Unstructured Volumes Using Hardware Accelerated Ray Tracing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Combining a coarse KD-tree partition with hardware ray tracing lets unstructured volume renderers skip empty space and adapt sampling, running up to 7x faster than a reference ray marcher.

desk verdict A practical acceleration for unstructured volume rendering that likely works as advertised, but the speedup numbers need fuller parameter reporting and the "bound on error" claim should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01906 v1 pith:K6QPAUZG submitted 2019-08-05 cs.GR

Nathan Morrical , Will Usher , Ingo Wald , Valerio Pascucci This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GR

keywords volumerenderingemptyspaceskippingadaptivesamplingunstructuredmesheshardwareraytracingtetrahedraloccupancygeometrymarching

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

Unstructured volume rendering usually marches rays through tetrahedral meshes, taking a sample at every step, and samples dominate the cost. This paper argues that a coarse spatial partition, a KD-tree whose leaves are shrunk to tightly fit the contained elements, can act as an occupancy structure for these meshes. Rays are traced against the partition bounds with hardware-accelerated ray tracing, skipping empty and fully transparent regions, and each partition's transfer-function variance sets its own sampling step size. The paper reports that this combination renders four tetrahedral data sets 3.5x to 7.8x faster than the reference ray marcher while keeping SSIM at or above 0.97, which would make interactive exploration of very large unstructured volumes practical.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an occupancy geometry built for unstructured data: a set of convex, disjoint regions created from KD-tree leaves, shrunk to fit their elements, and represented as triangles so that hardware-accelerated BVH ray tracing can find ray entry and exit points. The KD-tree leaves give adaptivity to non-uniform element sizes, the shrinking removes empty interior space, and per-partition scalar range plus transfer-function statistics let the renderer skip 100 percent transparent regions and set a local sampling rate. The same BVH is reused across transfer function changes because only the per-partition metadata is recomputed.

What would settle it

Set the reference ray marcher's step size so that its image matches a fully converged brute-force render at SSIM 0.99, then rerun the comparison; if the speedup over that matched baseline drops near 1x, the reported 7x gain is largely an artifact of an over-sampled reference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that empty space skipping and adaptive sampling, previously built for regular grids, can be carried over to unstructured tetrahedral meshes by partitioning the mesh into convex disjoint regions and using GPU ray tracing hardware to traverse them. Concretely, the leaves of a median-split KD-tree form the partitions; each leaf's box is shrunk to the bounding box of the elements it contains, and for each partition the paper stores the scalar range, the transfer function's maximum opacity, and its color variance, all of which can be updated when the transfer function changes without rebuilding the BVH. During rendering, rays are intersected with the partition boxes, entry found with back-face culling and exit with front-face culling, so transparent or empty partitions are skipped in one traversal step. Inside a partition, the step size is chosen by $s = \max(s_1 + (s_2-s_1)|\min(\sigma, 1)-1|^p, s_1)$, where $\sigma$ is the normalized variance, and the opacity is corrected to compensate for different step sizes. On Jets, Agulhas Current, and Deep Water Asteroid Impact the approach is about 3.5x faster than the reference; on Japan Earthquake it is 7.8x faster, with SSIM at least 0.97 in every case.

Load-bearing premise

The speedup claim assumes the reference ray marcher was fairly configured, with step size and termination like a good-quality baseline, but the paper never specifies the reference's sampling parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Large tetrahedral data sets such as the 278-million-tet Japan Earthquake can be viewed interactively, rising from 0.9 to 7 FPS at essentially matched image quality.
Transfer function changes stay cheap because the partition BVH is independent of the transfer function; only per-partition opacity and variance metadata need recomputation.
Users get three intuitive parameters, a minimum step, a maximum step, and an adaptive power, to trade speed for quality, and they can disable adaptivity entirely by setting the two steps equal.
The structure is not tied to the linear tetrahedral sampling kernel, so the same partition and skipping scheme could accelerate other sample-based ray marchers, including CPU implementations and higher-order interpolants.
Because space skipping only helps when regions are fully transparent, the largest combined speedups come from pairing it with adaptive sampling in semitransparent low-variance regions.

Reading between the lines

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

If point-location cost is the dominant per-sample expense, the relative gain grows as the interpolant becomes more expensive, so the 3.5-7.8x figures for linear tetrahedra may understate the benefit for higher-order or multivariate interpolation.
A natural extension is to include gradient magnitude or shading variance in the per-partition metadata, which would let the same variance-based step selection adapt to lighting-dependent detail rather than only transfer-function color variation.
The partition structure could double as a view-independent level-of-detail or culling structure for time-varying meshes if the KD-tree and BVH are rebuilt incrementally per timestep; the paper's stated rebuild cost is the main obstacle to that extension.
The combination of space skipping with adaptive sampling is what sustains speedups across transfer function styles: for continuous semitransparent transfer functions the skipping alone degrades, and the adaptive component must carry the gain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a solid systems paper that does what it says—extends occupancy-geometry space skipping to unstructured tetrahedral meshes, pairs it with RTX-accelerated traversal of shrunken KD-tree partitions, and adds a transfer-function-variance-based adaptive sampling scheme. The measured 3.5–7.8x speedups at SSIM >= 0.97 on four large datasets are plausible, and I think the central claim holds up as a practical engineering result. But before you trust the exact numbers, you need to know that the baseline is underspecified and the "bound on error" language is overclaimed.

What's genuinely new: this is the first combination, in the cited literature, of hardware ray tracing for empty space skipping with partition-level adaptive sampling on unstructured meshes. The idea of shrinking KD-tree leaves to tight element bounds is simple and effective. The opacity correction for variable step sizes is a standard but nice touch. The evaluation uses a good spread of dataset sizes (12M to 366M tets), and the heatmaps in Figure 5 actually show the sample reduction mechanism. The overhead measurement for the partition structure (3 ms on 4,725 partitions) is credible and useful. It's not a theoretical breakthrough, but it's a defensible, useful contribution to interactive scientific visualization.

Soft spots, in proportion: the stress-test concern is real. The reference ray marcher [32] is from the authors' own group, and the paper never states its step size, termination criterion, or quality settings. Without those, the 3.5–7.8x could be inflated by a deliberately fine-grained baseline. Same for their own method: s1, s2, and p are user parameters, and the paper only reports p (2 or 6) for each dataset, not s1/s2. That's missing experimental transparency, and it's the main reason I wouldn't call the speedup claim fully established. Second, the abstract and contributions say the adaptive sampling "provides a bound on error;" what Section 2.4 actually offers is an upper bound on step size, not on image error. That's a meaningful distinction and should be reworded. Third, there are no error bars or timing methodology, but for an interactive graphics paper that's often acceptable; I'd call that minor. The authors do honestly list numerical precision issues on large datasets and the transfer-function dependence of space skipping, which shows good judgment.

Who it's for: anyone working on volume rendering of unstructured meshes, especially with RTX-class hardware, will get value here. It deserves a serious peer review. I'd recommend conditional acceptance with a request for full parameter disclosure and a softened error-bound claim. If the authors release code or detailed configuration, the result can be verified independently.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method for direct volume rendering of unstructured tetrahedral meshes using sample-based ray marching accelerated by NVIDIA RTX ray tracing cores. A coarse median-split KD-tree partitions the mesh into convex, disjoint regions, which are then shrunk to tightly bound the contained elements; per-partition metadata (scalar range, transfer-function opacity, and color variance) is used to skip empty or fully transparent partitions via hardware-accelerated BVH traversal and to adaptively choose the ray-marching step size. The method is evaluated on four large tetrahedral datasets (Jets, Agulhas Current, Japan Earthquake, Deep Water Asteroid Impact) against a reference ray marcher from the authors' prior work [32], reporting speedups of roughly 3.5x on three datasets and 7.8x on Japan Earthquake at SSIM >= 0.97.

Significance. If the reported speedups are robust, the method is a practical and timely contribution to interactive rendering of massive unstructured volumes. It combines empty-space skipping and adaptive sampling in a way that leverages hardware ray tracing, with measured overhead that is small relative to the reported gains (e.g., 3 ms for 4725 partitions on Japan Earthquake). The paper also has notable strengths: the evaluation uses measured frame rates and SSIM values rather than derived comparisons, the adaptive sampling parameters are user controls rather than fit constants, and the reported behavior (increasing the maximum step size reduces samples and quality) is internally consistent. However, the central quantitative claim is contingent on the reference baseline being fairly configured and on the claimed error bound being meaningful, and both of these points need clarification before the results can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2 / Figure 3] The reference ray marcher [32] is never characterized by its step size, termination criteria, or quality settings, and the manuscript does not report the s1, s2, p values (beyond p=2 or p=6) or the KD-tree leaf budget used for each dataset. Because the reported 3.5x-7.8x speedups are the central result, the comparison is not reproducible and could be inflated if the reference used an unnecessarily small step size or a stricter termination criterion. Please report the exact configuration of both the reference and the proposed method for each dataset, ideally including a sweep over reference step sizes or a quality-matched baseline.
[Section 2.4 / contribution list] The claim that adaptive sampling 'provides a bound on error' is not supported by any derivation in the paper. The formula for the step size s only bounds s by s2, and bounding the step size does not by itself bound the integration error when field values and transfer-function opacity vary within a partition. Please either derive a formal error bound or revise the contribution and the Section 2.4 text to state that the maximum step size, not the rendering error, is bounded.
[Section 3.2 / Figure 4] The conclusion that 'a tolerable medium to high-quality image can still be provided' when taking 1/3 or fewer samples rests on SSIM values computed against the reference image. Since the reference step size is unspecified, SSIM only measures agreement with an underspecified baseline, not absolute fidelity to the volume integral. Please state the reference configuration and, for at least one representative view, validate the approximation against a converged reference solution (e.g., very fine uniform sampling) to confirm that the SSIM values reflect true image quality rather than agreement with a possibly oversampled baseline.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.4] Since Section 2.1 states that the per-partition variance values are normalized relative to the minimum and maximum variances over all partitions, the min(sigma, 1) in the step-size formula appears redundant; please clarify whether this is a numerical safeguard or whether normalization can produce values greater than 1.
[Section 3.3] The reported overhead of 3 ms for tracing rays through the Japan Earthquake partitions does not state the image resolution or the timing methodology; please specify both so the overhead can be interpreted.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'roughly 3-7x faster' while the text reports 3.5x and 7.8x; please unify the numbers or say '3.5x-7.8x'.
[Section 2.1] The text notes that a tetrahedron can appear in more than one leaf node and thus in more than one partition; this is fine, but the earlier claim that 'a ray will exit one partition before entering the next' should be stated as a property of the partition bounds rather than of the mesh elements, to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the adaptive sampling rule is a user heuristic, and the speedup/SSIM claims are measured against an executed reference, not by-construction reductions.

full rationale

The paper's contributions are an occupancy-geometry partition structure, hardware-accelerated traversal for empty-space skipping, and a variance-based step-size rule. The adaptive step size s = max(s1 + (s2 - s1)|min(sigma, 1) - 1|^p, s1) is a user-parameterized heuristic; it is not fitted to the reported FPS or SSIM numbers, and the reported results are not defined in terms of this formula. The evaluation compares measured frame rates against a reference ray marcher [32]. Although [32] shares authors with the present paper, the baseline is an executed benchmark rather than a derivation, and no reported quantity is equivalent to its own input by construction. The SSIM values are external image-quality comparisons to reference renderings, not by-construction equalities. The opacity correction term is a standard compositing adjustment, not a circular step. The only notable weakness is that the reference baseline's step size, termination criterion, and quality settings are not fully specified, which is a reproducibility and fairness concern for the speedup claim, not a circularity concern. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated. The method introduces an algorithmic spatial structure (KD-tree partitions) and a step-size schedule, but these are not entities in the sense of a new particle, force, or conserved quantity. All axioms are standard background or stated domain assumptions for GPU volume rendering.

free parameters (4)

s1 (minimum step size)
User-controlled parameter in the adaptive sampling equation (Section 2.4); sets the finest sampling rate. Value for reported results is not given in the text.
s2 (maximum step size)
User-controlled parameter in the adaptive sampling equation; sets the coarsest sampling rate and thus the speedup/quality trade-off. Value for reported results is not given.
p (adaptive power) = p=2 for Jets, Agulhas, Japan; p=6 for Deep Water
User-set exponent controlling how quickly step size transitions from s1 to s2 with variance. Chosen per dataset in the evaluation, not derived.
KD-tree leaf budget
Termination criterion for the spatial KD-tree (e.g., max elements per leaf or max depth) is not specified. It determines partition count (4725 for Japan Earthquake) and affects traversal overhead and adaptivity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Hardware ray tracing (OptiX/RT cores) provides correct ray-triangle intersection and BVH traversal for partition boxes.
Section 2.3 relies on NVIDIA Turing RT cores and OptiX to find ray entry and exit points through tessellated partition bounds.
domain assumption The rtx-shared-faces point location kernel from Wald et al. [32] correctly samples tetrahedral meshes at arbitrary points.
Section 2.4 uses this kernel to integrate along rays inside each partition; correctness of the final image depends on it.
standard math Opacity correction formula for variable step sizes (Engel et al. [7]) is valid for front-to-back compositing.
Section 2.4 applies this standard volume rendering correction when adjacent partitions use different step sizes.
domain assumption KD-tree leaves are convex and disjoint; splitting elements across partitions and sampling each partition independently yields correct images.
Section 2.1 builds partitions from KD-tree leaves; the paper assumes the convexity and disjointness properties hold and that partial element coverage is acceptable.
domain assumption Transfer function applied to the min/max scalar range of a partition gives conservative maximum opacity and color variance for that partition.
Section 2.1 computes per-partition metadata from the full scalar range of contained elements, including partially contained ones, to decide transparency and sampling rate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Space Skipping and Adaptive Sampling of Unstructured Volumes Using Hardware Accelerated Ray Tracing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6QPAUZG

@misc{pith2026190801906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Space Skipping and Adaptive Sampling of Unstructured Volumes Using Hardware Accelerated Ray Tracing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6QPAUZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01906}
}

read the original abstract

Sample based ray marching is an effective method for direct volume rendering of unstructured meshes. However, sampling such meshes remains expensive, and strategies to reduce the number of samples taken have received relatively little attention. In this paper, we introduce a method for rendering unstructured meshes using a combination of a coarse spatial acceleration structure and hardware-accelerated ray tracing. Our approach enables efficient empty space skipping and adaptive sampling of unstructured meshes, and outperforms a reference ray marcher by up to 7x.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01906 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Performance improvement of our method on the 278 million tetrahedra Japan Earthquake data set. (a) A reference volume ray marcher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An illustration of our method: (a) Given an unstructured mesh; (b) we build a coarse spatial subdivision over the mesh elements to partition them into a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Quality and performance comparisons of our method against a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The effect of increasing the maximum step size (tolerable error) on rendering performance, samples taken and image quality for each data set. As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A heatmap of the samples taken per-pixel compared to the reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[32]

I. Wald, W. Usher, N. Morrical, L. Lediaev, and V . Pas- cucci. RTX Beyond Ray Tracing: Exploring the Use of Hard- ware Ray Tracing Cores for Tet-Mesh Point Location. In Proceedings of High Performance Graphics , 2019. (To Ap- pear), http://www.sci.utah.edu/~wald/Publications/2019/ rtxPointQueries/rtxPointQueries.pdf

work page 2019
[1]

Boada, I

I. Boada, I. Navazo, and R. Scopigno. Multiresolution V olume Visual- ization with a Texture-Based Octree. The Visual Computer, 2001

work page 2001
[2]

Bunyk, A

P. Bunyk, A. Kaufman, and C. T. Silva. Simple, Fast, and Robust Ray Casting of Irregular Grids. In Scientiﬁc Visualization Conference (Dagstuhl ’97), 1997

work page 1997
[3]

Callahan, M

S. Callahan, M. Ikits, J. Comba, and C. Silva. Hardware-Assisted Visi- bility Sorting for Unstructured V olume Rendering.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

S. P. Callahan. The k-buffer and its applications to volume rendering, 2005

work page 2005
[5]

S. P. Callahan. Adaptive visualization of dynamic unstructured meshes, 2008

work page 2008
[6]

R. Cook, N. Max, C. T. Silva, and P. L. Williams. Image-space visibility ordering for cell projection volume rendering of unstructured data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , Nov 2004

work page 2004
[7]

Engel, M

K. Engel, M. Hadwiger, J. Kniss, C. Rezk-Salama, and D. Weiskopf. Real-Time Volume Graphics. 2006

work page 2006

Show all 35 references

[8]

Ganter and M

D. Ganter and M. Manzke. An Analysis of Region Clustered BVH V olume Rendering on GPU.Computer Graphics Forum, 2019

2019
[9]

Garland and Y

M. Garland and Y . Zhou. Quadric-based simpliﬁcation in any dimen- sion. ACM Trans. Graph., 2005

2005
[10]

M. P. Garrity. Raytracing irregular volume data. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 1990

1990
[11]

Gobbetti, F

E. Gobbetti, F. Marton, and J. A. Iglesias Guitián. A Single-Pass GPU Ray Casting Framework for Interactive Out-of-Core Rendering of Massive V olumetric Datasets.The Visual Computer, 2008

2008
[12]

Gu and D

G. Gu and D. Kim. Accurate and Memory-Efﬁcient GPU Ray- Casting Algorithm for V olume Rendering Unstructured Grid Data. In J. Madeiras Pereira and R. G. Raidou, eds., EuroVis 2019 - Posters, 2019

2019
[13]

Hadwiger, A

M. Hadwiger, A. K. Al-Awami, J. Beyer, M. Agus, and H. Pﬁster. SparseLeap: Efﬁcient empty space skipping for large-scale volume rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2017

2017
[14]

Knoll, S

A. Knoll, S. Thelen, I. Wald, C. D. Hansen, H. Hagen, and M. E. Papka. Full-resolution interactive CPU volume rendering with coherent BVH traversal. In Visualization Symposium (PaciﬁcVis), 2011

2011
[15]

Krüger and R

J. Krüger and R. Westermann. Acceleration techniques for GPU-based volume rendering. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Visualization 2003 (VIS ‘03), 2003

2003
[16]

Labschütz, S

M. Labschütz, S. Bruckner, M. E. Gröller, M. Hadwiger, and P. Rautek. JiTTree: A Just-in-Time Compiled Sparse GPU V olume Data Structure. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2016

2016
[17]

LaMar, B

E. LaMar, B. Hamann, and K. I. Joy. Multiresolution Techniques for Interactive Texture-Based V olume Visualization. InVIS ’99 Proceed- ings of the Conference on Visualization ’99: Celebrating Ten Years, 1999

1999
[18]

Leven, J

J. Leven, J. Corso, J. Cohen, and S. Kumar. Interactive visualization of unstructured grids using hierarchical 3d textures. In Symposium on Volume Visualization and Graphics, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE / ACM SIGGRAPH, Oct 2002

2002
[19]

Maximo, R

A. Maximo, R. Marroquim, and R. Farias. Hardware-Assisted Pro- jected Tetrahedra. Computer Graphics Forum, 2010

2010
[20]

Moreland and E

K. Moreland and E. Angel. A fast high accuracy volume renderer for unstructured data. In 2004 IEEE Symposium on Volume Visualization and Graphics, 2004

2004
[21]

Muigg, M

P. Muigg, M. Hadwiger, H. Doleisch, and E. Gröller. Interactive V olume Visualization of General Polyhedral Grids.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2011

2011
[22]

Nelson and R

B. Nelson and R. M. Kirby. Ray-tracing polymorphic multidomain spectral/hp elements for isosurface rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2006

2006
[23]

Parker, M

S. Parker, M. Parker, Y . Livnat, P.-P. Sloan, and C. Hansen. Interac- tive Ray Tracing for V olume Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1999

1999
[24]

S. G. Parker, J. Bigler, A. Dietrich, H. Friedrich, J. Hoberock, D. Lue- bke, D. McAllister, M. McGuire, K. Morley, and A. Robison. OptiX: A General Purpose Ray Tracing Engine. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH), 2010

2010
[25]

Rathke, I

B. Rathke, I. Wald, K. Chiu, and C. Brownlee. SIMD Parallel Ray Trac- ing of Homogeneous Polyhedral Grids. In Eurographics Symposium on Parallel Graphics and Visualization, 2015

2015
[26]

Reichl, M

F. Reichl, M. Treib, and R. Westermann. Visualization of Big SPH Simulations via Compressed Octree Grids. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 2013

2013
[27]

Shirley and A

P. Shirley and A. Tuchman. A Polygonal Approximation to Direct Scalar V olume Rendering. InProceedings of the 1990 Workshop on Volume Visualization, 1990

1990
[28]

Silva, J

C. Silva, J. Comba, S. P. Callahan, and F. F. Bernardon. A survey of gpu-based volume rendering of unstructured grids. RITA, 12, 01 2005

2005
[29]

K. R. Subramanian and D. S. Fussell. Applying space subdivision techniques to volume rendering. In VIS ‘90 Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Visualization, 1990

1990
[30]

Vidal, X

V . Vidal, X. Mei, and P. Decaudin. Simple Empty-Space Removal for Interactive V olume Rendering.Journal of Graphics Tools, 2008

2008
[31]

I. Wald, G. P. Johnson, J. Amstutz, C. Brownlee, A. Knoll, J. Jeffers, J. Günther, and P. Navrátil. OSPRay – A CPU Ray Tracing Framework for Scientiﬁc Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2017

2017
[33]

I. Wald, S. Woop, C. Benthin, G. S. Johnson, and M. Ernst. Embree: A Kernel Framework for Efﬁcient CPU Ray Tracing. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2014

2014
[34]

Weiler, M

M. Weiler, M. Kraus, M. Merz, and T. Ertl. Hardware-based ray casting for tetrahedral meshes. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Visualization 2003 (VIS’03), 2003

2003
[35]

Zimmermann, R

K. Zimmermann, R. Westermann, T. Ertl, C. Hansen, and M. Weiler. Level-of-Detail V olume Rendering via 3D Textures. In 2000 IEEE Symposium on Volume Visualization (VV 2000), 2000. Jets, 12M tets (vertex centered data) (a) Reference, 4.8 FPS (b) Adaptive, 16.7 FPS (c) SSIM, .99...

2000 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [32]

I. Wald, W. Usher, N. Morrical, L. Lediaev, and V . Pas- cucci. RTX Beyond Ray Tracing: Exploring the Use of Hard- ware Ray Tracing Cores for Tet-Mesh Point Location. In Proceedings of High Performance Graphics , 2019. (To Ap- pear), http://www.sci.utah.edu/~wald/Publications/2019/ rtxPointQueries/rtxPointQueries.pdf

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Boada, I

I. Boada, I. Navazo, and R. Scopigno. Multiresolution V olume Visual- ization with a Texture-Based Octree. The Visual Computer, 2001

work page 2001

[3] [2]

Bunyk, A

P. Bunyk, A. Kaufman, and C. T. Silva. Simple, Fast, and Robust Ray Casting of Irregular Grids. In Scientiﬁc Visualization Conference (Dagstuhl ’97), 1997

work page 1997

[4] [3]

Callahan, M

S. Callahan, M. Ikits, J. Comba, and C. Silva. Hardware-Assisted Visi- bility Sorting for Unstructured V olume Rendering.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [4]

S. P. Callahan. The k-buffer and its applications to volume rendering, 2005

work page 2005

[6] [5]

S. P. Callahan. Adaptive visualization of dynamic unstructured meshes, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [6]

R. Cook, N. Max, C. T. Silva, and P. L. Williams. Image-space visibility ordering for cell projection volume rendering of unstructured data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , Nov 2004

work page 2004

[8] [7]

Engel, M

K. Engel, M. Hadwiger, J. Kniss, C. Rezk-Salama, and D. Weiskopf. Real-Time Volume Graphics. 2006

work page 2006