DyGASR: Dynamic Generalized Exponential Splatting with Surface Alignment for Accelerated 3D Mesh Reconstruction

Shengchao Zhao; Yundong Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DyGASR: Dynamic Generalized Exponential Splatting with Surface Alignment for Accelerated 3D Mesh Reconstruction

T0 review · 3 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 DyGASR replaces 3D Gaussians with generalized exponential splats, aligns them to scene surfaces, and ramps resolution during training to reconstruct 3D meshes about 25% faster than prior splatting-based methods while cutting GPU memory by…

desk verdict Useful engineering combination, but the surface-regularization math only works for epsilon=2 and the paper never addresses that. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09156 v2 pith:5DZ23D2P submitted 2024-11-14 cs.CV cs.GR

Shengchao Zhao , Yundong Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.GR

keywords 3DGaussianSplattingmeshreconstructiongeneralizedexponentialsurfaceregularizationdynamicresolutiontrainingnovelviewsynthesisalignment

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 aims to make 3D mesh reconstruction from posed photographs faster and lighter by changing the primitive used in splatting-based radiance fields. Instead of many tiny 3D Gaussians, it uses generalized exponential splats, whose shape parameter can match sharper signals, so fewer primitives cover the same scene. A surface-regularization term flattens these splats onto the actual surface so that Poisson meshing works reliably, and a cosine-resolution training schedule starts low and rises to full resolution, cutting training time and memory. The authors report that the full system trains about 25% faster than the strong SuGaR baseline and uses about 6.3 GB less GPU memory while slightly improving rendering quality.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the generalized exponential splat (GES), a primitive with falloff $\exp\left(-\left(\frac{|x-\delta|}{\gamma}\right)^\epsilon\right)$ for a learnable shape parameter $\epsilon$; $\epsilon=2$ recovers a Gaussian, while other values yield Laplace-like, triangular, or squarer profiles. Its density field is converted to a signed distance function by $f(x)=\pm s_{\min}\sqrt{-2\log d(x)}$, and two losses push each splat flat ($s_{\min}\to 0$) and its normal perpendicular to the surface, after which Poisson reconstruction extracts the mesh. A dynamic-resolution schedule multiplies the image scale by a cosine ramp from 0.26 to 1.0 over 75% of training, which stabilizes the loss landscape and accelerates convergence.

What would settle it

Compute the gradient norm of $f(x)=s_{\min}\sqrt{-2\log d(x)}$ for a flat generalized exponential splat with $\epsilon=1$ and tiny $s_{\min}$; if $\|\nabla f\|$ deviates from 1 away from the zero level set, or if $f$ diverges at the splat center, the SDF assumption fails and the normal-loss term is not measuring a geometric normal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining generalized exponential splatting, surface-alignment regularization, and dynamic resolution training yields faster, cheaper, and higher-quality mesh reconstruction than existing 3D Gaussian splatting-based approaches. On the Mip-NeRF360 and Deep Blending scenes, the method reports a 25% training-time reduction and a 30% memory reduction versus SuGaR, with PSNR rising from 27.28 dB to 27.57 dB on Mip-NeRF360 and from 27.88 dB to 29.05 dB on Deep Blending. The underlying discovery is that the shape parameter of generalized exponential splats lets a scene be represented by fewer primitives while retaining sharp details, and that surface alignment via SDF and normal regularization makes those primitives suitable for explicit mesh extraction.

Load-bearing premise

The surface-regularization loss treats the density-to-SDF formula $f(x)=\pm s_{\min}\sqrt{-2\log d(x)}$ as a true signed distance to the surface, but for shape parameters $\epsilon\neq 2$ that formula is not a Euclidean distance and can blow up as $s_{\min}$ approaches zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the nine test scenes, the method reports higher PSNR and SSIM and lower LPIPS than SuGaR while training about 25% faster and using about 6.3 GB less VRAM.
Replacing Gaussians with generalized exponential splats reduces primitive count (e.g., from 2.78M to 1.76M on the bicycle scene) with negligible quality loss.
The GSR regularization drives SDF loss near zero, confirming that the splats flatten into thin, surface-aligned structures suitable for Poisson meshing.
The cosine resolution ramp stabilizes training losses and shortens training by roughly 18 minutes per scene in ablations, independent of the quality gains.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the dynamic-resolution strategy is decoupled from the choice of primitive, it could likely be applied to vanilla 3D Gaussian Splatting or other radiance-field methods to obtain similar speed-ups, an extension the paper tests only within DyGASR.
The density-to-SDF formula $f(x)=\pm s_{\min}\sqrt{-2\log d(x)}$ is mathematically a signed distance only in the Gaussian limit $\epsilon=2$; for other $\epsilon$ it is a fractional power of distance and may misrepresent Euclidean distance near the surface, so the method's success may depend on the trained $\epsilon$ staying close to 2.
The reported memory savings might translate to training on smaller GPUs or larger scenes than the nine evaluated, but the paper does not demonstrate this beyond its current benchmarks.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the speed and memory numbers are the real contribution; the surface-alignment math is not.

What's actually new: DyGASR is the first system I know of that puts GES into the SuGaR-style mesh-reconstruction pipeline, and the cosine resolution schedule is a sensible add-on. The ablation in Table 3 is honest: each component buys something, and the reported 25% speed-up and 6.3 GB memory saving over SuGaR are internally consistent with the training-time and VRAM columns in Table 1. If those numbers hold on other hardware, that's a useful engineering result for the 3DGS mesh crowd.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. Eq. (11) defines f(x) = ±s_min sqrt(-2 log d(x)) and then L_sdf and L_nor treat f as a signed distance. For a flattened generalized exponential splat with shape parameter epsilon, that formula gives f ~ s_min^(1-epsilon/2) |t|^(epsilon/2), not |t|, unless epsilon=2. Since epsilon is learned and the paper never reports what values it takes, the claim that GSR aligns splats to the surface is not supported by the derivation. The gradient of f won't have unit norm, and the isosurface offset used for Poisson meshing will vary with epsilon and s_min across splats. This is load-bearing: both regularization terms and the mesh extraction are built on f behaving like Euclidean distance. The authors need to either constrain epsilon to 2 during regularization, derive a proper SDF for general epsilon, or show empirically that the learned epsilon stays close to 2.

Also missing: lambda1 and lambda2 are never given, and no geometric mesh metrics (Chamfer distance, F-score) are reported. Table 1 only measures rendering quality through the reconstructed mesh and splats, so the "reconstruction quality" claim is really about novel-view synthesis, not mesh fidelity. Code would help, but the absent metrics matter more.

Is this paper worth a serious referee? Yes, conditionally. The engineering combination is plausible and the efficiency gains are worth verifying, but the GSR derivation needs major repair and the geometry claims need real metrics before this should be published as a mesh-reconstruction method.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DyGASR, a method for accelerated 3D mesh reconstruction that replaces 3D Gaussian splats with generalized exponential splats (GES), adds a surface-alignment regularization term (GSR) inspired by SuGaR, and introduces a cosine-scheduled dynamic resolution training (DRT) strategy. The authors claim that DyGASR reduces training time and memory usage while improving or maintaining rendering quality relative to prior 3DGS-based mesh reconstruction methods, and they support this with experiments on Mip-NeRF360 and Deep Blending datasets. The central novelty is the combination of GES primitives with a density-derived SDF regularizer and a coarse-to-fine resolution schedule.

Significance. If the technical concerns are resolved, the paper would offer a practical contribution: using generalized exponential primitives to reduce the number of splats and a dynamic resolution schedule to shorten training and cut memory use are both plausible and potentially transferable ideas. The paper includes ablations and reports speed/memory gains that could be useful to the community. However, the current evidence for the headline mesh-reconstruction claim is incomplete because the SDF conversion underlying the surface regularizer is not valid for general shape parameters, and because no geometric accuracy metric is reported. The significance of the contribution therefore depends on whether these two issues can be fixed.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Eqs. (10)-(13)] The SDF conversion in Eq. (11) is only exact for epsilon=2, and Eq. (10) itself is inconsistent with the GES density in Eq. (9) for epsilon != 2. For the density of a flattened generalized exponential splat, the exponent in Eq. (9) gives exp(-0.5 |t|^epsilon / s_min^epsilon), so Eq. (10) should contain s_min^epsilon in the denominator, not s_min^2. Substituting either the paper's Eq. (10) or the correct density into Eq. (11) yields a function proportional to |t|^(epsilon/2) (with an additional s_min-dependent prefactor in the latter case), whose gradient norm is not 1 for epsilon != 2 and which can diverge as s_min approaches 0 for epsilon > 2. Since epsilon is optimized per splat and no constraint or validation keeps it near 2, L_sdf and L_nor in Eqs. (12)-(13) do not implement the Euclidean surface-distance regularization that the paper claims, and the isosurface offset used in Poisson meshing becomes epsilon- and s_min-dependent. The paper provides no derivation, experiment, or ablation showing that this surrogate behaves like a signed distance for the epsilon values actually encountered. This issue is load-bearing for the surface-alignment and mesh-quality claims, and the authors should either restrict epsilon to 2, derive a correct SDF surrogate for general epsilon, or supply empirical validation (e.g., the distribution of learned epsilon and geometric accuracy on ground-truth meshes).
[Sections 4.1 and 4.3, Table 1] The evaluation of mesh reconstruction quality relies exclusively on rendering metrics (PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS) computed from views rendered using the reconstructed mesh and its associated splats. No direct geometric accuracy metric (e.g., Chamfer distance, F-score, or Hausdorff distance) is reported for the extracted meshes. Rendering fidelity can be high even when the underlying mesh geometry deviates from the true surface, especially because the final mesh is co-optimized with splats and the rendering is performed with splatting rather than by rasterizing the mesh geometry alone. Consequently, the central claim that DyGASR produces more accurate or higher-quality mesh geometry than SuGaR is under-supported. The authors should report quantitative geometric comparisons on a benchmark with ground-truth scans (e.g., DTU) or otherwise provide direct evidence of geometric accuracy.
[Section 4.2 and Eq. (14)] The regularization weights lambda1 and lambda2 in the total loss of Eq. (14) are never specified, and the GSR description in Section 4.2 does not state their values. The DRT schedule, shape strength rho, and isosurface alpha are given, but without lambda1 and lambda2 the GSR experiments are not reproducible and the relative contribution of L_sdf versus L_nor cannot be assessed. The authors should report these hyperparameters and any sensitivity analysis in the final version.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract, Introduction, and Section 4.3] The reported improvements are inconsistent: the abstract and conclusion state a 25% speed increase and 30% memory reduction, while Section 4.3 claims an 85% speed improvement and 37% VRAM decrease versus "prevalent and efficient 3DGS-based methods." The latter number is computed against an average that includes NeuSG, which is neither prevalent nor efficient in the same sense as SuGaR; please clarify the comparison baseline and make the percentages consistent across the paper.
[Table 1 caption] The caption says "qualitative analysis" but the table reports quantitative metrics; this is a wording error.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (10)] As detailed in the first major comment, the denominator in Eq. (10) should depend on epsilon (s_min^epsilon) for consistency with Eq. (9); even if the SDF issue were resolved, this equation should be corrected.
[Section 4.2] The terms "shape reset interval" and "shape pruning threshold" are not defined in the paper; please explain these GES-specific hyperparameters or cite the GES reference more precisely.
[References] The reference to SuGaR is informal ("A.Guédon"); use the full author list and venue information as in the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central speed/quality claims are checked against external benchmarks, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the GSR regularizer is an explicit adaptation of SuGaR rather than a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are supported by comparisons on external datasets (Mip-NeRF360 and Deep Blending) using held-out view rendering metrics in Table 1; no parameter fitted to those benchmarks is subsequently presented as a prediction. The GSR regularizer in Eqs. 9-13 is explicitly borrowed from SuGaR via citation [14] and adapted to generalized exponential splatting. Although the ideal density and normal targets in Eqs. 10 and 13 are generated from the splat model's own parameters, this is a standard self-supervision regularizer rather than a circular derivation of a result from its own conclusion: the rendering loss L_rgb in Eq. 8 provides independent image-based supervision throughout training. There are no self-citations by the authors, and no uniqueness theorem or prior work by the same authors is invoked to force a choice. The concern that Eq. 11, f(x)=±s_min sqrt(-2 log d(x)), is a valid signed distance function only for epsilon=2 is a substantive validity assumption about the GES extension, and it may undermine the mesh-alignment claim, but it is an unproven premise rather than an equivalence-by-construction or a fitted-input-called-prediction. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

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

The central claim relies on several hand-set hyperparameters and on the unproven transfer of SuGaR's density-to-SDF approximation to generalized exponential splats with freely optimized shape parameter epsilon. No new physical entities are introduced; this is a systems and method paper.

free parameters (4)

shape strength rho = 0.1
Controls the mapping phi(epsilon) in Eq. 7; hand-set in Section 4.2, not derived or swept.
regularization weights lambda1, lambda2 = not reported
Used to weight L_sdf and L_nor in Eq. 14 but no numerical values are given in Section 4.2.
dynamic resolution schedule start, end, duration = 0.26 to 1 over 75% of training
Chosen for DRT in Section 4.2; not justified by ablation across schedule variants.
isosurface alpha = 0.3
Mesh extraction threshold in Section 4.2; fixed by hand.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper Signed distance f = +/-s_min sqrt(-2 log d(x)) remains a valid SDF for generalized exponential splats with shape parameter epsilon != 2
Invoked around Eqs. 10-12; it holds only when epsilon=2 and no justification is supplied for other epsilon values.
domain assumption Density at a surface point is dominated by the nearest splat g*
Used in Eq. 10 to replace the density sum with a single flat splat; assumes splats are thin, opacity 1, and uniformly aligned.
domain assumption The regularization losses can drive s_min to zero while normals stay perpendicular
Needed for the SDF and normal losses to converge; validated only by loss curves, not by geometric metrics in Fig. 5.
domain assumption GES with fewer particles faithfully represents high-frequency scene signals
Inherited from GES and assumed in Section 1; not re-derived here.
standard math Poisson reconstruction from sampled isosurface points and normals yields the true surface
Standard pipeline from the cited Poisson reconstruction work, used in Section 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DyGASR: Dynamic Generalized Exponential Splatting with Surface Alignment for Accelerated 3D Mesh Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DZ23D2P

@misc{pith2026241109156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DyGASR: Dynamic Generalized Exponential Splatting with Surface Alignment for Accelerated 3D Mesh Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DZ23D2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09156}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advancements in 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS), which lead to high-quality novel view synthesis and accelerated rendering, have remarkably improved the quality of radiance field reconstruction. However, the extraction of mesh from a massive number of minute 3D Gaussian points remains great challenge due to the large volume of Gaussians and difficulty of representation of sharp signals caused by their inherent low-pass characteristics. To address this issue, we propose DyGASR, which utilizes generalized exponential function instead of traditional 3D Gaussian to decrease the number of particles and dynamically optimize the representation of the captured signal. In addition, it is observed that reconstructing mesh with Generalized Exponential Splatting(GES) without modifications frequently leads to failures since the generalized exponential distribution centroids may not precisely align with the scene surface. To overcome this, we adopt Sugar's approach and introduce Generalized Surface Regularization (GSR), which reduces the smallest scaling vector of each point cloud to zero and ensures normal alignment perpendicular to the surface, facilitating subsequent Poisson surface mesh reconstruction. Additionally, we propose a dynamic resolution adjustment strategy that utilizes a cosine schedule to gradually increase image resolution from low to high during the training stage, thus avoiding constant full resolution, which significantly boosts the reconstruction speed. Our approach surpasses existing 3DGS-based mesh reconstruction methods, as evidenced by extensive evaluations on various scene datasets, demonstrating a 25\% increase in speed, and a 30\% reduction in memory usage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09156 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustrates that our method, excels in both training time and reconstruction quality, achieving the highest performance. Our method aims to reduce training times and storage costs while surpassing state-of-the-art reconstruction quality. We noted the inherent assumption of low-pass characteristics in 3DGS signal modeling, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** We verify the low-pass characteristics of 3D Gaussians. In (a), the GT image is shown on the left, and a rendering after 500 iterations of 3DGS on the right, both analyzed in the frequency domain via Fourier transform along the same horizontal line. The rendering appears in green and the GT image in blue, highlighting that the lowpass characteristics of 3DGS do not perfectly align with the scene’s signal features. … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of Our Proposed Framework for Accelerated 3D Mesh Reconstruction. 3 Method 3.1 Overview [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Qualitative Comparison of Three Scenes from the Mip-NeRF360 Dataset [17]. The Last Column Displays Results from Our Rendering Method. 4 Experiments 4.1 Datasets and Metrics To assess the performance of our method, experiments are carried out on seven scenes from the Mi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Loss curves averaged from three random seeds in the bonsai scene. On the left are two types of losses in GSR, and on the right are training losses before and after the application of DRT. Loss using GSR and DRT To demonstrate the transformation of 3D generalized expon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Multi-view Normal and Distance Guidance Gaussian Splatting for Surface Reconstruction
cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

A 3DGS surface reconstruction method that enforces multi-view distance and normal consistency between nearby views to reduce geometry drift.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (ToG)32(3), 1–13 (2013)

Kazhdan, M., Hoppe, H.: Screened poisson surface reconstruction. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (ToG)32(3), 1–13 (2013)

2013
[2]

Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

2021
[3]

ACM transactions on graphics (TOG)41(4), 1–15 (2022)

Müller,T.,Evans,A.,Schied,C.,Keller,A.:Instantneuralgraphicsprimitiveswith a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG)41(4), 1–15 (2022)

2022
[4]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Ueda, I., Fukuhara, Y., Kataoka, H., Aizawa, H., Shishido, H., Kitahara, I.: Neural density-distance fields. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 53–68. Springer (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689 (2021)

Wang, P., Liu, L., Liu, Y., Theobalt, C., Komura, T., Wang, W.: Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689 (2021)

arXiv 2021
[6]

In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings

Yariv, L., Hedman, P., Reiser, C., Verbin, D., Srinivasan, P.P., Szeliski, R., Barron, J.T., Mildenhall, B.: Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real-time view synthesis. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings. pp. 1–9 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Li, Z., Müller, T., Evans, A., Taylor, R.H., Unberath, M., Liu, M.Y., Lin, C.H.: Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8456– 8465 (2023)

2023
[8]

Advances in neural information processing systems35, 25018–25032 (2022)

Yu, Z., Peng, S., Niemeyer, M., Sattler, T., Geiger, A.: Monosdf: Exploring monoc- ular geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 25018–25032 (2022)

2022

Show all 27 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Zhang, J., Yao, Y., Li, S., Fang, T., McKinnon, D., Tsin, Y., Quan, L.: Critical regularizations for neural surface reconstruction in the wild. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6270– 6279 (2022)

2022
[10]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Niemeyer, M., Barron, J.T., Mildenhall, B., Sajjadi, M.S., Geiger, A., Radwan, N.: Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 5480–5490 (2022)

2022
[11]

In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference pro- ceedings

Sun, J., Chen, X., Wang, Q., Li, Z., Averbuch-Elor, H., Zhou, X., Snavely, N.: Neural 3d reconstruction in the wild. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference pro- ceedings. pp. 1–9 (2022)

2022
[12]

ACM Transactions on Graphics 42(4), 1–14 (2023)

Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkühler, T., Drettakis, G.: 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics 42(4), 1–14 (2023)

2023
[13]

19812–19822 (2024)

Hamdi, A., Melas-Kyriazi, L., Mai, J., Qian, G., Liu, R., Vondrick, C., Ghanem, B., Vedaldi, A.: Ges: Generalized exponential splatting for efficient radiance field rendering pp. 19812–19822 (2024)

2024
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12775 (2023)

Guédon, A., Lepetit, V.: Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for effi- cient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12775 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[15]

In: Proceedings eighth IEEE international conference on computer vision

Broadhurst, A., Drummond, T.W., Cipolla, R.: A probabilistic framework for space carving. In: Proceedings eighth IEEE international conference on computer vision. ICCV 2001. vol. 1, pp. 388–393. IEEE (2001)

2001
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07928 (2020)

Zhang, J., Yao, Y., Li, S., Luo, Z., Fang, T.: Visibility-aware multi-view stereo network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07928 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[17]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Barron, J.T., Mildenhall, B., Tancik, M., Hedman, P., Martin-Brualla, R., Srini- vasan, P.P.: Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 5855–5864 (2021)

2021
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01339 (2024)

Yan, Y., Lin, H., Zhou, C., Wang, W., Sun, H., Zhan, K., Lang, X., Zhou, X., Peng, S.: Street gaussians for modeling dynamic urban scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01339 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08581 (2023)

Zielonka, W., Bagautdinov, T., Saito, S., Zollhöfer, M., Thies, J., Romero, J.: Drivable 3d gaussian avatars. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08581 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[20]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16493 (2023)

Yu, Z., Chen, A., Huang, B., Sattler, T., Geiger, A.: Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16493 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[21]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 2492–2502 (2020)

Yariv, L., Kasten, Y., Moran, D., Galun, M., Atzmon, M., Ronen, B., Lipman, Y.: Multiview neural surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and appear- ance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 2492–2502 (2020)

2020
[22]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 1966–1978 (2022)

Wang, Y., Skorokhodov, I., Wonka, P.: Hf-neus: Improved surface reconstruction using high-frequency details. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 1966–1978 (2022)

2022
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00846 (2023)

Chen, H., Li, C., Lee, G.H.: Neusg: Neural implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00846 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[24]

ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 37(6), 1–15 (2018)

Hedman, P., Philip, J., Price, T., Frahm, J.M., Drettakis, G., Brostow, G.: Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 37(6), 1–15 (2018)

2018
[25]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 586–595 (2018)

2018
[26]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Chen, Z., Funkhouser, T., Hedman, P., Tagliasacchi, A.: Mobilenerf: Exploiting the polygon rasterization pipeline for efficient neural field rendering on mobile architectures. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 16569–16578 (2023)

2023
[27]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Tang, J., Zhou, H., Chen, X., Hu, T., Ding, E., Wang, J., Zeng, G.: Delicate textured mesh recovery from nerf via adaptive surface refinement. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 17739–17749 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (ToG)32(3), 1–13 (2013)

Kazhdan, M., Hoppe, H.: Screened poisson surface reconstruction. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (ToG)32(3), 1–13 (2013)

2013

[2] [2]

Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

2021

[3] [3]

ACM transactions on graphics (TOG)41(4), 1–15 (2022)

Müller,T.,Evans,A.,Schied,C.,Keller,A.:Instantneuralgraphicsprimitiveswith a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG)41(4), 1–15 (2022)

2022

[4] [4]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Ueda, I., Fukuhara, Y., Kataoka, H., Aizawa, H., Shishido, H., Kitahara, I.: Neural density-distance fields. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 53–68. Springer (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689 (2021)

Wang, P., Liu, L., Liu, Y., Theobalt, C., Komura, T., Wang, W.: Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689 (2021)

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings

Yariv, L., Hedman, P., Reiser, C., Verbin, D., Srinivasan, P.P., Szeliski, R., Barron, J.T., Mildenhall, B.: Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real-time view synthesis. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings. pp. 1–9 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Li, Z., Müller, T., Evans, A., Taylor, R.H., Unberath, M., Liu, M.Y., Lin, C.H.: Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8456– 8465 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

Advances in neural information processing systems35, 25018–25032 (2022)

Yu, Z., Peng, S., Niemeyer, M., Sattler, T., Geiger, A.: Monosdf: Exploring monoc- ular geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 25018–25032 (2022)

2022