Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Learning to Predict 3D Objects with an Interpolation-based Differentiable Renderer

T0 review · 4 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 This paper presents DIB-R, an interpolation-based differentiable renderer that computes analytic gradients for every pixel, allowing neural networks to learn 3D shape, texture, and lighting from 2D images alone.

desk verdict DIB-R is a practical differentiable renderer that combines known interpolation and soft-assignment ideas; the 'fully differentiable' claim is a bit too strong, but the combination and lighting support make it worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01210 v2 pith:SUZWOBCS submitted 2019-08-03 cs.CV

Wenzheng Chen , Jun Gao , Huan Ling , Edward J. Smith , Jaakko Lehtinen , Alec Jacobson , Sanja Fidler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords differentiablerenderingrasterizationsingle-image3Dreconstructiontexturepredictionlightingestimation2Dsupervisiongenerativeadversarialnetworksbarycentricinterpolation
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

The paper sets out to make rendering—the process that turns 3D geometry and light into a 2D image—accessible to gradient-based machine learning. Its central move is to replace the discrete assignment step of rasterization with two smooth operations: foreground pixels are colored by interpolating attributes of the closest covering face, and background pixels receive a distance-based soft contribution from all faces. Because both operations have closed-form derivatives, gradients can flow to every vertex attribute, including positions, colors, texture coordinates, normals, and light directions, across Lambertian, Phong, and spherical-harmonic lighting models. The paper demonstrates the payoff by training neural networks that predict 3D shape, texture, and lighting from single images, and a generative model that produces textured 3D shapes, all using only 2D supervision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rasterizer with two differentiable paths. Foreground path: a pixel value $I_i = w_0u_0 + w_1u_1 + w_2u_2$, where $w_k = \Omega_k(\vec{v}_0, \vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \vec{p}_i)$ are barycentric weights computed from vertex and pixel positions; this turns rasterization into weighted interpolation and gives $\partial I_i/\partial u_k = w_k$ plus chain-rule derivatives through vertex positions. Background path: the soft silhouette probability $$A_{i'} = 1 - \prod_{j=1}^n \left(1 - \exp\left(-\frac{d(p_{i'}, f_j)}{\delta}\right)\right),$$ a distance-based aggregation over all faces that lets background pixels send gradients to every face, including occluded ones. The $\alpha$ channel formed by these $A_{i'}$ combines with the interpolated foreground colors to make the full image differentiable; the same interpolation machinery then carries normals, texture coordinates, and light directions into the fragment shader for Lambertian, Phong, and spherical-harmonic shading.

What would settle it

Render a two-triangle square with DIB-R, and move one vertex a small amount so a pixel near the shared edge changes which triangle covers it. Then compare the renderer's analytic gradient of the image with respect to that vertex with a finite-difference gradient; a mismatch at the switch would show the all-pixels differentiability claim holds only between visibility changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is a claim about rasterization: the hard "which face covers this pixel" decision can be split so that gradient information survives. For every foreground pixel, a z-buffer test picks the closest covering face, and the pixel value is a barycentric interpolation of that face's vertex attributes; the derivative with respect to vertex attributes is the interpolation weight, and the derivative with respect to vertex positions follows by the chain rule through those weights. For background pixels, the paper defines a soft assignment $A_{i'} = 1 - \prod_j (1 - \exp(-d(p_{i'}, f_j)/\delta))$ that aggregates all faces by distance, so even pixels outside the silhouette push learning signal to the whole mesh. With this split, the paper argues, the entire rendering pipeline—vertex shader, rasterization, and fragment shader—becomes analytically differentiable, and optimization over shape, color, texture, lighting, and camera parameters can be driven by ordinary image losses.

Load-bearing premise

The analytic gradients assume the triangle covering each foreground pixel stays fixed while vertices move; when a vertex displacement changes which triangle covers a pixel, the derivative formula switches discontinuously, and the paper does not model that visibility change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-image 3D reconstruction networks can be trained end-to-end with only silhouette and color losses on 2D images, without ground-truth 3D shapes.
  • The same renderer supports simultaneous optimization of vertex positions, vertex colors, texture coordinates, normals, lighting directions, camera positions, and material parameters, so inverse-graphics pipelines can recover several scene properties at once.
  • Texture and lighting can be separated well enough that the model predicts an explicit texture map and a light direction from a single view, and the paper shows the map stays consistent across viewpoints and lighting changes.
  • A generative adversarial network can produce textured 3D shapes using only 2D image supervision, with shape and texture generated from a latent code.
  • The paper reports that shininess is the one material parameter it cannot separate reliably; the texture map compensates for it, which limits the Phong-model reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same foreground-interpolation and background-aggregation split could be applied to other discrete rendering decisions, such as shadow-map lookups or anti-aliasing filters, where softening the boundary decision might preserve gradients.
  • Because the foreground path differentiates only through the face selected by the z-buffer, the method likely underestimates gradients across occlusion boundaries; adding an explicit visibility-switch term could make optimization robust when meshes deform across topology changes.
  • The background soft-assignment formula is essentially a differentiable silhouette: it could serve as a generic occlusion-aware loss for multi-view 3D reconstruction, a use the paper does not explore.
  • The failure to predict shininess suggests a testable design rule: material parameters with a small image footprint should be supervised with auxiliary cues or regularized separately rather than learned purely from pixel reconstruction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DIB-R, a differentiable rasterization-based renderer. For foreground pixels, each pixel is assigned via a z-buffer test to the closest covering face, and its value is computed by barycentric interpolation of that face's vertex attributes; for background pixels, an alpha value is computed through a distance-based soft aggregation over all faces. The authors derive analytic gradients for pixel values with respect to vertex positions, colors, normals, texture coordinates, lighting directions, and material parameters under several lighting models (Phong, Lambertian, Spherical Harmonics). The renderer is evaluated in three applications: single-image 3D mesh prediction with vertex colors, joint prediction of geometry/texture/lighting with an adversarial loss, and a 3D GAN of textured shapes trained from 2D supervision. Empirical comparisons are made against N3MR and SoftRas-Mesh on ShapeNet, and against CMR on CUB birds.

Significance. If the claims hold, DIB-R is a practically useful contribution to the growing family of differentiable renderers. The interpolation-based foreground formulation and distance-based background aggregation are simple, and the support for multiple lighting models and many vertex attributes is broader than in prior rasterization-based approaches. The paper ships clear empirical comparisons on ShapeNet, a texture/lighting separation study, and a real-image evaluation on CUB/PASCAL3D+, which give the reader a sense of the method's strengths and limitations. The central claim, however, is stronger than what is actually established: the 'fully differentiable' property is limited by the discrete z-buffer assignment, and the texture GAN evaluation in Sec. 4.2 is partly circular. These issues do not invalidate the empirical results, but they require the authors to qualify their theoretical framing and to strengthen the evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The assertion that DIB-R 'allows gradients to be analytically computed for all pixels' is not fully supported. The z-buffer test assigns each foreground pixel exclusively to the closest covering face, and Eq. (3) differentiates through that face only. At visibility switches, where a vertex displacement changes which face covers a pixel or which face is closest, the rendered image is discontinuous and the true gradient does not exist; DIB-R returns the smooth gradient of the fixed-assignment interpolation instead. Thus the claimed analytic differentiability holds only away from these measure-zero boundaries, and the gradient is a proxy for the actual rendered image derivative. This should be acknowledged explicitly, and the authors should either analyze the behavior at visibility switches or soften the claim (e.g., by describing the gradient as a fixed-assignment subgradient). The central contribution of the paper is precisely this differentiability property, so this is a load-bearing issue.
  2. [§4.2 and §5.5] The texture discriminator in the 3D GAN is trained against 'ground truth' textures that are produced by the authors' own texture/light prediction network from Sec. 4.1. This is circular: the GAN is asked to imitate the output of another network trained on the same dataset, not actual ground-truth texture maps. The claim that the GAN produces meaningful textures is therefore partly self-referential. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and, if possible, provide a non-circular evaluation, such as a human study or a comparison against textures inferred by an independent method.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] No error bars or statistical significance tests are reported for the quantitative comparisons. Several improvements over baselines in Table 1 are small in absolute terms (e.g., 1.92 points in mean 3D IOU over SoftRas-Mesh), and without variance estimates it is unclear whether the differences are meaningful. The authors should report standard deviations over multiple runs or, at minimum, state how many random seeds were used.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (5)] The background aggregation depends on the smoothing hyperparameter δ, which controls the width of the distance-based probability. No sensitivity analysis or ablation of δ is provided, despite the paper emphasizing the importance of background gradients for shape learning. The authors should include an experiment varying δ or otherwise justify their chosen value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'both trained using exclusively using 2D supervision' is grammatically awkward; consider 'both trained using only 2D supervision.'
  2. [§3.2] The distance function d(pi', fj) in Eq. (5) is not defined in the main text; a brief description (e.g., point-to-triangle distance in projected 2D space) would improve readability.
  3. [§5.3] In the sentence 'This might be because the shininess effect is not significant enough to be learned by a neural network though 2D supervision,' the word 'though' should presumably be 'through.'
  4. [§3.3.2] The decomposition I = Il Ic + Is in Eq. (7) is clear, but the notation Il and Is is not explicitly defined in the text; adding a sentence stating that Il is the diffuse lighting factor and Is is the additional (specular/emissive) term would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core DIB-R derivation is self-contained; one circular step in §4.2 uses the paper's own Sec 4.1 texture predictions as 'ground truth' for the 3D GAN texture discriminator.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, paragraph beginning 'While empirically the above GAN is able to recover accurate shapes...']
    "However, as our dataset does not contain true texture maps which can be mapped onto a deformed sphere, for ground truth textures we instead use the textures produced from our network trained to predict texture and lighting from images (Sec 4.1)."

    The paper defines the 'ground truth' textures for the 3D GAN's texture discriminator as the outputs of its own Sec 4.1 texture-and-lighting prediction network. That network was trained through the same DIB-R pipeline with 2D supervision, so the GAN's texture generation is rewarded for imitating the Sec 4.1 model's texture manifold rather than any independent ground truth. Consequently, the claim that the GAN produces realistic textures is partly circular: the target distribution is generated by the authors' own earlier model, and the GAN cannot exceed the fidelity of that model on the texture axis. The shape path remains independent because it is supervised by silhouettes and image losses, but the texture-specific contribution of the GAN is self-referential.

full rationale

The central contribution of the paper, the differentiable rasterization formulation in Section 3, is not circular. Equations (1)-(6) define the rendered pixel values explicitly in terms of barycentric interpolation for foreground pixels and a distance-based aggregation for background pixels, and the gradients follow by direct chain rule through those definitions. The paper does not derive the renderer from its own conclusions, nor does it invoke a self-citation as the load-bearing justification for the core approach. The z-buffer assignment issue raised in the skeptical reading is a genuine technical limitation about gradients at visibility switches, but it is not a circularity: the method is a well-defined differentiable proxy for the rendering operation, and the paper's equations do not hide their assumptions. The one clear circular step is in Section 4.2, where the ground truth textures for the GAN's texture discriminator are taken from the authors' own Sec 4.1 network. This makes the GAN's texture-generation results partially self-referential and prevents them from being an independent validation of texture realism. However, this circularity is confined to one experimental application and does not undermine the renderer's mathematical derivation or the single-image reconstruction results, which are evaluated against external 3D metrics. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained, with a significant but localized circularity in the GAN texture experiment, warranting a score of 4.

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

The renderer's equations are simple and mostly reuse standard differentiable operations. The genuinely load-bearing choices are the hard z-buffer foreground assignment, the soft background distance aggregation with a hand-set delta, and the fixed-sphere mesh topology used in all applications. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • delta (background smoothness) = not reported in manuscript
    In Eq. 5, delta controls the softness of the distance-based probability A_j; it determines how far background gradients reach and is a hand-chosen hyperparameter with no sensitivity analysis.
  • loss weights lambda_col, lambda_sm, lambda_lap, lambda_adv, lambda_gp, lambda_per = 1, 0.001, 0.01, 0.5, 0.5, 1
    Hand-set weights in Eqs. 14 and 17; they balance silhouette, color, smoothness, adversarial, gradient penalty, and perceptual losses. No ablation is reported.
  • Phong material constants kd, ks = kd=1, ks=0.4
    Set by hand in the adversarial lighting experiments (§5.3); the shininess exponent alpha is predicted. These constants affect the texture/lighting separation result.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Foreground pixels are assigned exclusively to the nearest covering face via z-buffering, and this assignment is held fixed during differentiation.
    Used in §3.2 to define foreground gradients (Eqs. 1-3); the paper does not analyze the nondifferentiable switches that occur when a vertex moves across a pixel boundary.
  • domain assumption Background soft assignment of all faces by distance provides a useful learning signal for shape and occlusion.
    Eqs. 5-6 define the alpha channel; this is a design choice rather than a consequence of image formation, and its bias is not measured.
  • domain assumption Objects are represented by a fixed-topology mesh deformed from a sphere.
    All prediction experiments start from a polygon sphere with a fixed graph; the method cannot change topology, which limits representable shapes.
  • standard math Barycentric coordinates and projective transformations are differentiable with respect to vertex positions.
    Relied on for the chain rule in Eqs. 2-3; standard and uncontroversial.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Predict 3D Objects with an Interpolation-based Differentiable Renderer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUZWOBCS

@misc{pith2026190801210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Predict 3D Objects with an Interpolation-based Differentiable Renderer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUZWOBCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01210}
}
read the original abstract

Many machine learning models operate on images, but ignore the fact that images are 2D projections formed by 3D geometry interacting with light, in a process called rendering. Enabling ML models to understand image formation might be key for generalization. However, due to an essential rasterization step involving discrete assignment operations, rendering pipelines are non-differentiable and thus largely inaccessible to gradient-based ML techniques. In this paper, we present {\emph DIB-R}, a differentiable rendering framework which allows gradients to be analytically computed for all pixels in an image. Key to our approach is to view foreground rasterization as a weighted interpolation of local properties and background rasterization as a distance-based aggregation of global geometry. Our approach allows for accurate optimization over vertex positions, colors, normals, light directions and texture coordinates through a variety of lighting models. We showcase our approach in two ML applications: single-image 3D object prediction, and 3D textured object generation, both trained using exclusively using 2D supervision. Our project website is: https://nv-tlabs.github.io/DIB-R/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of our Differentiable Rasteriza￾tion. Consider first only the foreground pixels that are covered by one or more faces. Here, in contrast to standard rendering, where a pixel’s value is assigned from the closest face that covers it, we treat foreground rasteriza￾tion as an interpolation of vertex attributes[4]. For every foreground pixel we perform a z-buffering test [6], and assign it to the closest cov… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Qualitative results on single image 3D object prediction. First and fifth column is the ground-truth image, the second and sixth columns are the prediction from our model, the third and seventh column are results from SoftRas-Mesh [20], the rest two columns are results from N3MR [14] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Qualitative examples for 3D shape, texture and light prediction, when exploiting adverserial loss. Purple rectangle: Input image. Left Example: Phong Lighting. Right Example: Spherical Harmonics. First col: Texture and Light. Second col: Texture. Third col: Light. Forth to Sixth col: Texture; different views. Ours GT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light & Texture Separation Study. Purple rectangle: Input image, which are rendered with the same car model but different lighting directions. Each three columns visualize Texture + Light, Texture, Light. Ours GT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light & Texture Separation Study. Purple rect: Input image. Left: Input images are with same light and texture but vary views. Right: Input images are with the same texture but with different shininess constants. 5.3 Texture and Lighting Results With Adversarial Loss W…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative examples on CUBbird dataset [35] and PASCAL3D+ Car dataset [38] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 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. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02392, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Wasserstein gan

    Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. Wasserstein gan. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07875, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  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]

    Unsupervised training for 3d morphable model regression

    Kyle Genova, Forrester Cole, Aaron Maschinot, Aaron Sarna, Daniel Vlasic, and William T Freeman. Unsupervised training for 3d morphable model regression. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8377–8386, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2672–2680, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Hierarchical z-buffer visibility

    Ned Greene, Michael Kass, and Gavin Miller. Hierarchical z-buffer visibility. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 231–238. ACM, 1993

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Improved training of wasserstein gans

    Ishaan Gulrajani, Faruk Ahmed, Martin Arjovsky, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron C Courville. Improved training of wasserstein gans. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5767–5777, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Girshick

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross B. Girshick. Mask R-CNN. CoRR, abs/1703.06870, 2017

    arXiv 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

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

    2016

  2. [10]

    Learning to generate and reconstruct 3d meshes with only 2d supervision

    Paul Henderson and Vittorio Ferrari. Learning to generate and reconstruct 3d meshes with only 2d supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.09259, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1125–1134, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Learning category-specific mesh reconstruction from image collections

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

    2018

  6. [14]

    Neural 3d mesh renderer

    Hiroharu Kato, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. Neural 3d mesh renderer. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3907–3916, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J.H. Lambert. Photometria. 1760

  9. [17]

    Differentiable monte carlo ray tracing through edge sampling

    Tzu-Mao Li, Miika Aittala, Frédo Durand, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Differentiable monte carlo ray tracing through edge sampling. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Technical Papers, page 222. ACM, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Paparazzi: Surface editing by way of multi-view image processing

    Hsueh-Ti Derek Liu, Michael Tao, and Alec Jacobson. Paparazzi: Surface editing by way of multi-view image processing. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Technical Papers, page 221. ACM, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Beyond pixel norm-balls: Parametric adversaries using an analytically differentiable renderer

    Hsueh-Ti Derek Liu, Michael Tao, Chun-Liang Li, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, and Alec Jacobson. Beyond pixel norm-balls: Parametric adversaries using an analytically differentiable renderer. In ICLR, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Soft rasterizer: Differentiable rendering for unsupervised single-view mesh reconstruction

    Shichen Liu, Weikai Chen, Tianye Li, and Hao Li. Soft rasterizer: Differentiable rendering for unsupervised single-view mesh reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05567, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Soft rasterizer: A differentiable renderer for image-based 3d reasoning, 2019

    Shichen Liu, Tianye Li, Weikai Chen, and Hao Li. Soft rasterizer: A differentiable renderer for image-based 3d reasoning, 2019. 10

    2019

  14. [22]

    Opendr: An approximate differentiable renderer

    Matthew M Loper and Michael J Black. Opendr: An approximate differentiable renderer. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 154–169. Springer, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Introduction to 3D game programming with DirectX 11

    Frank Luna. Introduction to 3D game programming with DirectX 11. Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784, 2014

    Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. Conditional generative adversarial nets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pix2vex: Image-to-geometry reconstruction using a smooth differentiable renderer

    Felix Petersen, Amit H Bermano, Oliver Deussen, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Pix2vex: Image-to-geometry reconstruction using a smooth differentiable renderer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11149, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Illumination for computer generated pictures

    Bui Tuong Phong. Illumination for computer generated pictures. Commun. ACM, 18(6):311–317, June 1975

    1975

  19. [27]

    An efficient representation for irradiance environment maps

    Ravi Ramamoorthi and Pat Hanrahan. An efficient representation for irradiance environment maps. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH ’01, pages 497–500, New York, NY , USA, 2001. ACM

    2001

  20. [28]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    GEOMetrics: Exploiting geometric structure for graph-encoded objects

    Edward Smith, Scott Fujimoto, Adriana Romero, and David Meger. GEOMetrics: Exploiting geometric structure for graph-encoded objects. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 5866–5876...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Improved adversarial systems for 3d object generation and reconstruction

    Edward J Smith and David Meger. Improved adversarial systems for 3d object generation and reconstruction. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 87–96, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Unsupervised 3d shape learning from image collections in the wild

    Attila Szabó and Paolo Favaro. Unsupervised 3d shape learning from image collections in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10519, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    What do single-view 3d reconstruction networks learn? In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3405–3414, 2019

    Maxim Tatarchenko, Stephan R Richter, René Ranftl, Zhuwen Li, Vladlen Koltun, and Thomas Brox. What do single-view 3d reconstruction networks learn? In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3405–3414, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    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 European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 52–67, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    High- resolution image synthesis and semantic manipulation with conditional gans

    Ting-Chun Wang, Ming-Yu Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, Andrew Tao, Jan Kautz, and Bryan Catanzaro. High- resolution image synthesis and semantic manipulation with conditional gans. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8798–8807, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Welinder, S

    P. Welinder, S. Branson, T. Mita, C. Wah, F. Schroff, S. Belongie, and P. Perona. Caltech-UCSD Birds 200. Technical Report CNS-TR-2010-001, California Institute of Technology, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    OpenGL programming guide: the official guide to learning OpenGL, version 1.2

    Mason Woo, Jackie Neider, Tom Davis, and Dave Shreiner. OpenGL programming guide: the official guide to learning OpenGL, version 1.2. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1999

    1999

  29. [37]

    Learning shape priors for single-view 3d completion and reconstruction

    Jiajun Wu, Chengkai Zhang, Xiuming Zhang, Zhoutong Zhang, William T Freeman, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Learning shape priors for single-view 3d completion and reconstruction. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 673–691. Springer, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Beyond pascal: A benchmark for 3d object detection in the wild

    Yu Xiang, Roozbeh Mottaghi, and Silvio Savarese. Beyond pascal: A benchmark for 3d object detection in the wild. In IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    3d object reconstruction from a single depth view with adversarial learning

    Bo Yang, Hongkai Wen, Sen Wang, Ronald Clark, Andrew Markham, and Niki Trigoni. 3d object reconstruction from a single depth view with adversarial learning. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 679–688, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    3d-aware scene manipulation via inverse graphics

    Shunyu Yao, Tzu Ming Hsu, Jun-Yan Zhu, Jiajun Wu, Antonio Torralba, Bill Freeman, and Josh Tenenbaum. 3d-aware scene manipulation via inverse graphics. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1887–1898, 2018. 11

    2018

Pith tools

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