Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 111 references

QUEEN: QUantized Efficient ENcoding of Dynamic Gaussians for Streaming Free-viewpoint Videos

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QUEEN learns and compresses per-frame Gaussian residuals, claiming to beat prior online free-viewpoint methods on quality while cutting storage to 0.7 MB per frame.

desk verdict A genuinely useful streaming-GS compression system with honest ablations; the Immersive baseline row is too thin to support the 'all metrics' claim, but the core tradeoff is credible and deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04469 v1 pith:SRXIW4RV submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CV cs.AI

Sharath Girish , Tianye Li , Amrita Mazumdar , Abhinav Shrivastava , David Luebke , Shalini De Mello This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords 3DGaussiansplattingfree-viewpointvideoonlinestreamingresidualcompressionlearnedquantizationsparsityviewspacegradientneuralrendering
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 tries to establish that live free-viewpoint video can be streamed from 3D Gaussian Splatting by learning only the per-frame residual changes to the Gaussians and compressing those residuals with a learned quantization-sparsity scheme. It claims this removes the structural constraints of prior online methods, which fix the representation's form and therefore miss new scene content or lighting changes. If correct, the method would make volumetric video conferencing and live broadcast practical, since each frame costs roughly 0.7 MB, trains in under 5 seconds, and renders at about 350 FPS. The paper reports higher reconstruction quality than prior online free-viewpoint methods on two standard benchmarks while using about 10x less storage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the learned quantization-sparsity framework. A shared linear decoder maps quantized integer latents to attribute residuals for rotation, scale, opacity, and color; position residuals are multiplied by hard-concrete gates that are trained with an L0-style loss so most gates collapse to zero, leaving a sparse set of full-precision positional updates. The viewspace gradient difference between consecutive frames acts as a cheap proxy for scene dynamics, providing gate initialization and an adaptive render mask that skips static image regions during training.

What would settle it

Re-run 3DGStream and QUEEN on the Immersive dataset with equal per-method hyperparameter tuning and several random seeds, using the same A100 GPU; if the tuned 3DGStream reaches or exceeds QUEEN's PSNR at comparable storage, the paper's central claim of all-metric superiority fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QUEEN's central claim is that Gaussian attribute residuals between consecutive frames can be simultaneously learned and compressed without imposing structural constraints, and that this yields better quality and lower bandwidth than fixed-structure online methods. Non-position attributes (rotation, scale, opacity, color) are represented by integer latents decoded by a shared linear decoder and entropy-coded after training; position residuals, which are sensitive to quantization, are sparsified by learned hard-concrete gates and stored at full precision only for dynamic Gaussians. A viewspace gradient difference signal separates static from dynamic scene content, initializes the gates, and focuses training on dynamic image regions. On the N3DV and Immersive datasets, the paper reports that QUEEN outperforms the best prior online method on PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS while reducing per-frame storage roughly 10x and improving training and rendering speed.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed lead over prior work rests on the comparison to 3DGStream being fair: the paper re-runs that baseline with modified settings on one dataset and omits it on another, so if a properly tuned version of the baseline closes the gap, the central claim weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, a live volumetric broadcast could fit within roughly 5 megabits per second at 30 fps, well within common uplink budgets.
  • Because the residual codec is content-adaptive, frames with large scene changes automatically receive more bits, which should make the method more robust to sudden motion than fixed-size representations.
  • The decoupled quantization (for appearance and shape) and sparsity (for position) split suggests that other attribute types could be assigned to either pathway based on their measured sensitivity to quantization error.
  • Faster per-frame training (under 5 seconds) makes the method suitable for interactive or telepresence settings where a new frame must be encoded while the previous one is still rendering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to vary the number of training epochs per frame and measure the rate-distortion curve against a fixed bitrate budget, which would show whether the reported 0.7 MB/frame point sits on a useful operating curve or is achievable only with carefully chosen hyperparameters.
  • The viewspace gradient difference signal is defined for 3D-GS; a natural transfer would be to use the same idea to gate updates in other incremental neural representations, such as triplanes or voxel grids, where a static/dynamic split could also save compute.
  • The paper's own limitations note that long sequences and drastic topological changes are hard for per-frame residual learning; a keyframing scheme that occasionally re-trains from scratch would be a direct follow-up that the paper leaves implicit.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QUEEN, an online free-viewpoint video (FVV) framework based on 3D Gaussian Splatting. At each time step, QUEEN learns residuals for all Gaussian attributes relative to the previous frame, compresses position residuals through learned hard-concrete gating, and quantizes the remaining attribute residuals via learned integer latents with a shared linear decoder followed by entropy coding. A viewspace gradient-difference signal is used to initialize the gates and to drive adaptive masked rendering during training. Experiments on the N3DV and Immersive datasets report higher PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS than a re-run of 3DGStream, with per-frame model sizes around 0.7 MB, training times on the order of 5-20 seconds per frame, and rendering speeds of roughly 200-350 FPS. The paper also includes ablations, per-scene results, trade-off curves, hyperparameter sensitivity, and a user study.

Significance. If the baseline comparisons are validated, QUEEN would be a substantial advance: it directly attacks the bandwidth-latency-quality trade-off that defines online FVV and introduces a coherent learned quantization-sparsity framework for Gaussian attribute residuals. The paper is strong in several reporting dimensions: it provides component-wise ablations (Tables 2-4), quantization-versus-gating trade-off curves (Figure 7), accuracy-memory trade-offs (Figure 8), hyperparameter sensitivity (Table 13), per-scene and per-frame analyses (Tables 9-10, Figures 9-10), and a perceptual user study (Appendix A.8). However, the central quantitative claim currently rests on an incompletely controlled comparison: on Immersive, the only online baseline is a modified reimplementation of 3DGStream, and no error bars or multiple seeds are reported anywhere. These caveats are load-bearing because some of the headline gaps on N3DV are only fractions of a dB, and the abstract's unconditional 'all metrics' claim is contradicted by the storage column of Table 1.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 1, and Table 1] The abstract and Section 1 claim that QUEEN 'outperforms the state-of-the-art online FVV methods on all metrics,' and Section 1 additionally claims a roughly 10x per-frame memory reduction. This is not literally supported by Table 1: TeTriRF, which is categorized as an online method in Table 1 and discussed as online in Section 2.2, reports 0.06 MB/frame on N3DV, whereas QUEEN-s uses 0.68 MB/frame and QUEEN-l uses 0.75 MB/frame. TeTriRF has much lower PSNR and rendering speed, so the practical trade-off may favor QUEEN, but the unconditional 'all metrics' statement is false as written. The claim should be qualified (e.g., 'among methods with comparable reconstruction quality') or supported by a storage-quality Pareto comparison rather than a single aggregate table.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Appendix B.2] The Immersive comparison is not yet a controlled test of the headline claim. The only online baseline shown in Table 1 is 3DGStream*, which Appendix B.2 states was run with a reduced densification gradient threshold (0.0075) and modified Stage 1/2 iterations (450/250) on Immersive; no official 3DGStream Immersive numbers are reported, and no sensitivity analysis or selection rationale is given for these changes. On N3DV, 3DGStream* (31.58 dB) falls slightly below the originally published 3DGStream (31.67 dB), so the reimplementation is not validated to match or exceed the official model. Because this baseline supports the +4.04 dB and roughly 5x storage claims on Immersive, the authors should either report official 3DGStream results, validate the reimplementation (e.g., by matching official settings and showing a distribution over seeds), or include the other online/incremental methods discussed in Section 2.2, such as INV [81], VideoRF [79], and TeTriRF [84], which are absent from the comparison tables.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Checklist Q7] The paper reports no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds for any of the central experimental results, and the checklist explicitly answers 'No' to statistical significance. This is especially important because several headline differences are small: on N3DV, QUEEN-l (32.19 dB) exceeds 3DGStream* (31.58 dB) by 0.61 dB, and Table 13 shows that switching from the N3DV to the Immersive hyperparameter set changes PSNR by 0.08 dB and storage by 0.89 MB. The authors should provide at least three seeds with standard deviations for the main comparison tables and ablations, or state clearly why the training procedure is deterministic enough that a single run is reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract's '0.7 MB per frame, training in under 5 sec and rendering at about 350 FPS' refers specifically to the QUEEN-s variant on N3DV; the values for QUEEN-l are 0.75 MB, 7.9 s, and 248 FPS, and the Immersive numbers are larger still. Please make the configuration and dataset explicit in the abstract.
  2. [Section 1] There is a typo in the Introduction: 'Guassian' should be 'Gaussian'.
  3. [Equations (9)-(10)] The symbol d_t is used both for the vector of viewspace gradient differences in Eq. (9) and for the normalized gate-active probability in Eq. (10). Using a different symbol for the normalized score would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Appendix A.8] The user study reports strong preferences but does not state how the 15 participants were recruited, whether the same participants evaluated both datasets, or whether the preference proportions are accompanied by any variability measure. Adding these details would make the perceptual claim easier to assess.
  5. [Checklist Q5] The paper does not release code, and the custom 3DGStream* reimplementation is central to the comparison. Since the checklist already states that code will be released in the future, including the exact configuration files for the modified baseline would substantially reduce reproducibility risk.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild self-referential gating validation; main quantitative claims are externally benchmarked and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.3 (Eqs. 9-10) and Sec. 4.4 / Fig. 5 caption]
    "We use the norm of the score vector |dti| to initialize the gate parameters. ... We set pi in Eq. 8 to be dti to solve for the initial αi. ... However, post-training, most gates become inactive while the remaining active gates successfully focus on the dynamic scene content, e.g., the person’s hands or the dog’s face. This validates that our gating mechanism effectively separates static and dynamic scene content."

    The gate parameters are initialized from the same viewspace-gradient-difference score dt that is later presented as evidence of static/dynamic separation: Eq. 10 defines the gate-active probability as a normalized function of |dti|, and the text sets the L0 probability pi (which determines αi and hence the concrete gate) equal to dti. The initial gate pattern is therefore constructed to match dt. The Sec. 4.4 claim that post-training active gates 'focus on the dynamic scene content' and 'validates that our gating mechanism effectively separates static and dynamic scene content' then re-uses the initialization signal as if it were an independent validation of the learned gates. Part of the separation result is true by construction rather than discovered.

full rationale

QUEEN's headline claims are established by external benchmarking: Table 1 reports PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, storage, training time, and FPS on held-out central views of N3DV and Immersive, and the reported quality/size numbers are not derivable from any fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. The compression pipeline is self-contained: residuals are learned with the reconstruction loss of Eq. 3, quantized latents are entropy-coded, position gates are trained with the L0-style loss of Eq. 8, and ablations show explicit quality-size and quality-time tradeoffs controlled by λreg, λstd, and iteration count. The only circular step found is the gating analysis: the viewspace gradient difference is used both to initialize the gates (Eqs. 9-10) and then cited as evidence that the gates separate static from dynamic content (Sec. 4.4, Fig. 5). That is self-referential but does not force the central quantitative comparisons. The baseline-fairness concerns noted by the reader (the authors' 3DGStream* re-run configuration, and absent INV/VideoRF/TeTriRF comparisons) are experimental-control and correctness risks, not circularity, so they do not raise this score under the stated rules. The self-citation to [24] for the quantization module supplies a technique rather than a load-bearing theorem, and the results remain externally evaluated.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is empirical and introduces no new physical entities. Its performance depends on several tuned hyperparameters and on assumptions about scene temporal redundancy and gradient-based motion cues. No code or error bars are provided, so the exact contribution of each component is hard to isolate without reimplementation.

free parameters (8)
  • lambda_reg sparsity coefficient = 0.01 for both datasets
    Controls the storage versus quality tradeoff in Eq. 11; tuned per dataset.
  • Hard concrete gate parameters (gamma0, gamma1, tau) = N3DV: -0.5, 1.01, 0.3; Immersive: -0.1, 1.1, 0.5
    Set separately for N3DV and Immersive to account for different amounts of scene motion; Table 11.
  • Position residual learning rate = 0.00016 for N3DV, 0.0005 for Immersive
    Chosen per dataset to let Gaussians adapt to highly dynamic scenes; Appendix B.
  • Quantization latent dimensions and learning rates per attribute = Rotation 6, Scaling 8, Opacity 3, Color Base 8, Color Freq 4 or 12; latent LR varies by attribute
    Tables 6 and 12; ablations show latent dimension has small effect, while learning rates were tuned.
  • Masked training fraction and threshold = 30% iterations for N3DV, 65% for Immersive; td=0.001; dilation 48x48
    Balances training speed against quality; Section 4.1 and Appendix B.
  • First-frame and per-frame training epochs = 500 and 350 first-frame epochs; 10 and 15 per-frame epochs
    Compute-budget choices that affect the reported training times in Table 1.
  • Densification schedule and threshold = N3DV: epochs 6 to 80%, interval 2, threshold 0.00125; Immersive: epoch 8, threshold 0.00125
    Densification is needed to capture new scene content and affects quality and size; Appendix B.
  • lambda_std latent standard-deviation regularization = not reported as a final value
    Appendix A.2 introduces varying lambda_std for entropy control, but the value used in the final reported models is not stated, which is a reproducibility gap.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The straight-through estimator gives usable gradients through rounding.
    Used in Eq. 5; standard practice in learned quantization.
  • standard math Hard concrete gates provide a differentiable L0 penalty that yields exact zeros.
    Invoked in Eqs. 6 through 8, following Louizos et al.; assumed to train stably.
  • domain assumption Entropy coding after training realizes the bitrate implied by the latent entropy.
    Assumed in the Storage section of Appendix B; the actual codec overhead is not measured.
  • domain assumption Consecutive frames of dynamic scenes have high temporal redundancy, so most Gaussian residuals are small or zero.
    Basis for residual encoding and gating; supported by ablations and Figure 9.
  • domain assumption Position residuals are more sensitive to quantization than other attributes and need full precision.
    Stated in Sec 3.2.2 and Appendix A.1; this is a design premise, not proven generally.
  • domain assumption The viewspace gradient difference reliably separates static and dynamic content.
    Used in Sec 3.3 for gate initialization and masked training; validated mainly by ablations.
  • domain assumption Per-step training can recover from large scene changes under the tested benchmark conditions.
    Needed for the Immersive results; Appendix C concedes difficulties with sudden topological changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QUEEN: QUantized Efficient ENcoding of Dynamic Gaussians for Streaming Free-viewpoint Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRXIW4RV

@misc{pith2026241204469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QUEEN: QUantized Efficient ENcoding of Dynamic Gaussians for Streaming Free-viewpoint Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRXIW4RV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04469}
}
read the original abstract

Online free-viewpoint video (FVV) streaming is a challenging problem, which is relatively under-explored. It requires incremental on-the-fly updates to a volumetric representation, fast training and rendering to satisfy real-time constraints and a small memory footprint for efficient transmission. If achieved, it can enhance user experience by enabling novel applications, e.g., 3D video conferencing and live volumetric video broadcast, among others. In this work, we propose a novel framework for QUantized and Efficient ENcoding (QUEEN) for streaming FVV using 3D Gaussian Splatting (3D-GS). QUEEN directly learns Gaussian attribute residuals between consecutive frames at each time-step without imposing any structural constraints on them, allowing for high quality reconstruction and generalizability. To efficiently store the residuals, we further propose a quantization-sparsity framework, which contains a learned latent-decoder for effectively quantizing attribute residuals other than Gaussian positions and a learned gating module to sparsify position residuals. We propose to use the Gaussian viewspace gradient difference vector as a signal to separate the static and dynamic content of the scene. It acts as a guide for effective sparsity learning and speeds up training. On diverse FVV benchmarks, QUEEN outperforms the state-of-the-art online FVV methods on all metrics. Notably, for several highly dynamic scenes, it reduces the model size to just 0.7 MB per frame while training in under 5 sec and rendering at 350 FPS. Project website is at https://research.nvidia.com/labs/amri/projects/queen

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of QUEEN for online FVV. We incrementally update Gaussian attributes at each time-step (gray block) by simultaneously learning and compressing residuals between consecutive time-steps via a quantization (orange block) and sparsity (yellow block) framework. We additionally render only the dynamic Gaussians for masked regions to achieve faster convergence (green block). can approximate only small changes in n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Viewspace Gradient Difference. We use the difference of viewspace gradients between consecutive frames to identify dynamic scene content. Real-world dynamic scenes con￾tain high amounts of temporal redundancy with only a fraction of the content changing between consecutive time-steps. The proposed quantization-sparsity framework can learn to iden￾tify Gaussians corresponding to static scene content and set their res… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative Results. A visualization of various scenes in the N3DV and Immersive datasets. PSNR (↑) values are shown. We include additional video results in the supplement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of Updating Appearance Attributes. QUEEN updates all Gaussian attributes, resulting in improved quality versus keeping appearance attributes fixed across a video. 4.4 Ablations Effect of Updating Appearance Attributes. To ablate the importance of updating the Ga…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of Gating. While a large number of gates (47%) are active at start of training (a, c), they are pruned and only gates corresponding to changing scene content (2%) remain active (b, d). viewspace gradient differences due to faster convergence of the gates, withou…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Adaptive Image Mask Visualization. We separate out the dynamic scene content at different time-steps of the video through our viewspace gradient difference approach in Sec. 3.3. Effect of Adaptive Image Mask. We visualize the masks obtained by our viewspace gradient di…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of Gating vs Quantization of Position Residuals. Gating leads to much better PSNR versus size or PSNR versus training time tradeoff curves due to higher precision residuals. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PSNR-Size Tradeoffs. We evaluate the effect of varying λstd and λreg for (a) the quantized latents and (b) the sparse position residuals. The storage size is measured in KB for the full video duration of 300 frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Adaptive Sizes. Our quantization-sparsity framework automatically allocates more memory for frames with larger scene changes (higher frame difference). Notice that the frame difference spikes in the Immersive scenes (bottom row) correlate with frame-wise model size, wh…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Per-frame Quality Evaluation. Our approach results in higher PSNR for large scene changes corresponding to higher consecutive frame difference such as around frame 175 (top right) or the spikes in the bottom right scene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of Depth Initialization. Top row: (a) COLMAP produces sparse or no points for regions of the scene with limited texture, producing (b) erroneous image rendering and (c) incorrect geometry or depth. Bottom row: initializing with depth maps predicted by an off-th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [81]

    INV: Towards Streaming Incremental Neural Videos

    Shengze Wang, Alexey Supikov, Joshua Ratcliff, Henry Fuchs, and Ronald Azuma. Inv: Towards streaming incremental neural videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01532, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [79]

    Videorf: Rendering dynamic radiance fields as 2d feature video streams, 2023

    Liao Wang, Kaixin Yao, Chengcheng Guo, Zhirui Zhang, Qiang Hu, Jingyi Yu, Lan Xu, and Minye Wu. Videorf: Rendering dynamic radiance fields as 2d feature video streams, 2023. 15

    work page 2023

  3. [84]

    Tetrirf: Temporal tri-plane radiance fields for efficient free-viewpoint video

    Minye Wu, Zehao Wang, Georgios Kouros, and Tinne Tuytelaars. Tetrirf: Temporal tri-plane radiance fields for efficient free-viewpoint video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    Hyperreel: High-fidelity 6-dof video with ray-conditioned sampling

    Benjamin Attal, Jia-Bin Huang, Christian Richardt, Michael Zollhoefer, Johannes Kopf, Matthew O’Toole, and Changil Kim. Hyperreel: High-fidelity 6-dof video with ray-conditioned sampling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16610–16620, 2023

    2023

  5. [2]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5855–5864, 2021

    2021

  6. [3]

    Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation

    Yoshua Bengio, Nicholas Léonard, and Aaron Courville. Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3432, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  7. [4]

    Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation

    Michael Broxton, John Flynn, Ryan Overbeck, Daniel Erickson, Peter Hedman, Matthew Duvall, Jason Dourgarian, Jay Busch, Matt Whalen, and Paul Debevec. Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(4):86–1, 2020

    2020

  8. [5]

    Hexplane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes

    Ang Cao and Justin Johnson. Hexplane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 130–141, 2023

    2023

Show all 111 references
  1. [6]

    Relighting human locomotion with flowed reflectance fields

    Charles-Félix Chabert, Per Einarsson, Andrew Jones, Bruce Lamond, Wan-Chun Ma, Sebastian Sylwan, Tim Hawkins, and Paul Debevec. Relighting human locomotion with flowed reflectance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Sketches, pages 76–es. Association for Computing Machinery, 2006

    2006

  2. [7]

    Efficient geometry- aware 3d generative adversarial networks

    Eric R Chan, Connor Z Lin, Matthew A Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas J Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, et al. Efficient geometry- aware 3d generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi...

    2022

  3. [8]

    Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Fuqiang Zhao, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Fanbo Xiang, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 14124–14133, 2021

    2021

  4. [9]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 333–350. Springer, 2022

    2022

  5. [10]

    View interpolation for image synthesis

    Shenchang Eric Chen and Lance Williams. View interpolation for image synthesis. In Proceed- ings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques , pages 279–288, 1993

    1993

  6. [11]

    Bounds on variance for unimodal distributions

    Hye Won Chung, Brian M Sadler, and Alfred O Hero. Bounds on variance for unimodal distributions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(11):6936–6949, 2017

    2017

  7. [12]

    High-quality streamable free-viewpoint video

    Alvaro Collet, Ming Chuang, Pat Sweeney, Don Gillett, Dennis Evseev, David Calabrese, Hugues Hoppe, Adam Kirk, and Steve Sullivan. High-quality streamable free-viewpoint video. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 34(4):1–13, 2015

    2015

  8. [13]

    Unstructured light fields

    Abe Davis, Marc Levoy, and Fredo Durand. Unstructured light fields. Comput. Graph. Forum, 31(2pt1):305–314, may 2012. ISSN 0167-7055. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2012.03009.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2012.03009.x

    2012

  9. [14]

    Acquiring the reflectance field of a human face

    Paul Debevec, Tim Hawkins, Chris Tchou, Haarm-Pieter Duiker, Westley Sarokin, and Mark Sagar. Acquiring the reflectance field of a human face. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 145–156, 2000

    2000

  10. [15]

    Compressing explicit voxel grid representations: fast nerfs become also small

    Chenxi Lola Deng and Enzo Tartaglione. Compressing explicit voxel grid representations: fast nerfs become also small. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1236–1245, 2023. 11

    2023

  11. [16]

    Neural radiance flow for 4d view synthesis and video processing

    Yilun Du, Yinan Zhang, Hong-Xing Yu, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Jiajun Wu. Neural radiance flow for 4d view synthesis and video processing. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 14304–14314. IEEE Computer Society, 2021

    2021

  12. [17]

    Light- gaussian: Unbounded 3d gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ fps

    Zhiwen Fan, Kevin Wang, Kairun Wen, Zehao Zhu, Dejia Xu, and Zhangyang Wang. Light- gaussian: Unbounded 3d gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ fps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17245, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5501–5510, 2022

    2022

  14. [19]

    K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Giacomo Meanti, Frederik Rahbæk Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12479–12488, 2023

    2023

  15. [20]

    Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis

    Jean Furukawa, Yasutaka; Ponce. Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 32(8), 2010

    2010

  16. [21]

    Dynamic neural radiance fields for monocular 4d facial avatar reconstruction

    Guy Gafni, Justus Thies, Michael Zollhofer, and Matthias Nießner. Dynamic neural radiance fields for monocular 4d facial avatar reconstruction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8649–8658, 2021

    2021

  17. [22]

    Dynamic view synthesis from dynamic monocular video

    Chen Gao, Ayush Saraf, Johannes Kopf, and Jia-Bin Huang. Dynamic view synthesis from dynamic monocular video. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021

    2021

  18. [23]

    Gaussianflow: Splatting gaussian dynamics for 4d content creation

    Quankai Gao, Qiangeng Xu, Zhe Cao, Ben Mildenhall, Wenchao Ma, Le Chen, Danhang Tang, and Ulrich Neumann. Gaussianflow: Splatting gaussian dynamics for 4d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12365, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Eagles: Efficient accelerated 3d gaussians with lightweight encodings

    Sharath Girish, Kamal Gupta, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Eagles: Efficient accelerated 3d gaussians with lightweight encodings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04564, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Shacira: Scalable hash-grid com- pression for implicit neural representations

    Sharath Girish, Abhinav Shrivastava, and Kamal Gupta. Shacira: Scalable hash-grid com- pression for implicit neural representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 17513–17524, October 2023

    2023

  21. [26]

    The relightables: V olu- metric performance capture of humans with realistic relighting

    Kaiwen Guo, Peter Lincoln, Philip Davidson, Jay Busch, Xueming Yu, Matt Whalen, Geoff Harvey, Sergio Orts-Escolano, Rohit Pandey, Jason Dourgarian, et al. The relightables: V olu- metric performance capture of humans with realistic relighting. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG...

    2019

  22. [27]

    Virtualized reality: Constructing virtual worlds from real scenes

    Takeo Kanade, Peter Rander, and PJ Narayanan. Virtualized reality: Constructing virtual worlds from real scenes. IEEE Multimedia, 4(1):34–47, 1997

    1997

  23. [28]

    Screened poisson surface reconstruction

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

    2013

  24. [29]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4):1–14, 2023

    2023

  25. [30]

    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

  26. [31]

    Nersemble: Multi-view radiance field reconstruction of human heads

    Tobias Kirschstein, Shenhan Qian, Simon Giebenhain, Tim Walter, and Matthias Nießner. Nersemble: Multi-view radiance field reconstruction of human heads. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4), jul 2023. ISSN 0730-0301. doi: 10.1145/3592455. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3592455

    2023 doi

  27. [32]

    Hugs: Human gaussian splats, 2023

    Muhammed Kocabas, Rick Chang, James Gabriel, Oncel Tuzel, and Anurag Ranjan. Hugs: Human gaussian splats, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17910. 12

    2023 arXiv

  28. [33]

    An introduction to arithmetic coding

    Glen G Langdon. An introduction to arithmetic coding. IBM Journal of Research and Develop- ment, 28(2):135–149, 1984

    1984

  29. [34]

    Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field

    Joo Chan Lee, Daniel Rho, Xiangyu Sun, Jong Hwan Ko, and Eunbyung Park. Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13681, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Light field rendering

    Marc Levoy and Pat Hanrahan. Light field rendering. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 31–42, 1996

    1996

  31. [36]

    Guibas, and Mark Pauly

    Hao Li, Bart Adams, Leonidas J. Guibas, and Mark Pauly. Robust single-view geometry and motion reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proceedings SIGGRAPH Asia 2009), 28(5), December 2009

    2009

  32. [37]

    Streaming radiance fields for 3d video synthesis

    Lingzhi Li, Zhen Shen, Zhongshu Wang, Li Shen, and Ping Tan. Streaming radiance fields for 3d video synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:13485–13498, 2022

    2022

  33. [38]

    Compressing volumetric radiance fields to 1 mb

    Lingzhi Li, Zhen Shen, Zhongshu Wang, Li Shen, and Liefeng Bo. Compressing volumetric radiance fields to 1 mb. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4222–4231, 2023

    2023

  34. [39]

    Tava: Template-free animatable volumetric actors

    Ruilong Li, Julian Tanke, Minh V o, Michael Zollhöfer, Jürgen Gall, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Christoph Lassner. Tava: Template-free animatable volumetric actors. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 419–436. Springer, 2022

    2022

  35. [40]

    Tianye Li, Timo Bolkart, Michael. J. Black, Hao Li, and Javier Romero. Learning a model of facial shape and expression from 4D scans. ACM Transactions on Graphics, (Proc. SIG- GRAPH Asia), 36(6):194:1–194:17, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3130800. 3130813

    2017 doi

  36. [41]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, et al. Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision...

    2022

  37. [42]

    Spacetime gaussian feature splatting for real-time dynamic view synthesis

    Zhan Li, Zhang Chen, Zhong Li, and Yi Xu. Spacetime gaussian feature splatting for real-time dynamic view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    2024

  38. [43]

    Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthesis of dynamic scenes

    Zhengqi Li, Simon Niklaus, Noah Snavely, and Oliver Wang. Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthesis of dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6498–6508, 2021

    2021

  39. [44]

    Dynibar: Neural dynamic image-based rendering

    Zhengqi Li, Qianqian Wang, Forrester Cole, Richard Tucker, and Noah Snavely. Dynibar: Neural dynamic image-based rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

    2023

  40. [45]

    Efficient neural radiance fields for interactive free-viewpoint video

    Haotong Lin, Sida Peng, Zhen Xu, Yunzhi Yan, Qing Shuai, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Efficient neural radiance fields for interactive free-viewpoint video. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers, pages 1–9, 2022

    2022

  41. [46]

    High- fidelity and real-time novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes

    Haotong Lin, Sida Peng, Zhen Xu, Tao Xie, Xingyi He, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. High- fidelity and real-time novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers, pages 1–9, 2023

    2023

  42. [47]

    Neural volumes: Learning dynamic renderable volumes from images

    Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Jason Saragih, Gabriel Schwartz, Andreas Lehrmann, and Yaser Sheikh. Neural volumes: Learning dynamic renderable volumes from images. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 38(4):65:1–65:14, July 2019

    2019

  43. [48]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 34(6):248:1–248:16, October 2015. 13

    2015

  44. [49]

    Learning sparse neural networks throughL0 regularization

    Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P Kingma. Learning sparse neural networks throughL0 regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01312, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  45. [50]

    Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis

    Jonathon Luiten, Georgios Kopanas, Bastian Leibe, and Deva Ramanan. Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis. In 3DV, 2024

    2024

  46. [51]

    The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables

    Chris J Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh. The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00712, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  47. [52]

    Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for unconstrained photo collections

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Jonathan T Barron, Alexey Dosovit- skiy, and Daniel Duckworth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for unconstrained photo collections. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2021

  48. [53]

    Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(4):1–14, 2019

    2019

  49. [54]

    NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2020

    2020

  50. [55]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas Müller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4): 1–15, 2022

    2022

  51. [56]

    Dtam: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time

    Richard A Newcombe, Steven J Lovegrove, and Andrew J Davison. Dtam: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time. In 2011 international conference on computer vision, pages 2320–2327. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  52. [57]

    Holoportation: Virtual 3d teleportation in real-time

    Sergio Orts-Escolano, Christoph Rhemann, Sean Fanello, Wayne Chang, Adarsh Kowdle, Yury Degtyarev, David Kim, Philip L Davidson, Sameh Khamis, Mingsong Dou, et al. Holoportation: Virtual 3d teleportation in real-time. In Proceedings of the 29th annual symposium on user interfa...

    2016

  53. [58]

    Reducing the memory footprint of 3d gaussian splatting

    Panagiotis Papantonakis, Georgios Kopanas, Bernhard Kerbl, Alexandre Lanvin, and George Drettakis. Reducing the memory footprint of 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, volume 7, 2024

    2024

  54. [59]

    Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Steven M

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Peter Hedman, Jonathan T. Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Steven M. Seitz. Hypernerf: A higher-dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields. ACM Trans. Graph., 40(6), dec 2021

    2021

  55. [60]

    Sparse matrix technology-electronic edition

    Sergio Pissanetzky. Sparse matrix technology-electronic edition. Academic Press, 1984

    1984

  56. [61]

    Spatiotemporal atlas parameterization for evolving meshes

    Fabián Prada, Misha Kazhdan, Ming Chuang, Alvaro Collet, and Hugues Hoppe. Spatiotemporal atlas parameterization for evolving meshes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 36(4):1–12, 2017

    2017

  57. [62]

    D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes

    Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10318–10327, 2021

    2021

  58. [63]

    Gaussianavatars: Photorealistic head avatars with rigged 3d gaussians

    Shenhan Qian, Tobias Kirschstein, Liam Schoneveld, Davide Davoli, Simon Giebenhain, and Matthias Nießner. Gaussianavatars: Photorealistic head avatars with rigged 3d gaussians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02069, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  59. [64]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer

    René Ranftl, Katrin Lasinger, David Hafner, Konrad Schindler, and Vladlen Koltun. Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(3), 2022. 14

    2022

  60. [65]

    Image quality assessment through fsim, ssim, mse and psnr—a comparative study

    Umme Sara, Morium Akter, and Mohammad Shorif Uddin. Image quality assessment through fsim, ssim, mse and psnr—a comparative study. Journal of Computer and Communications, 7 (3):8–18, 2019

    2019

  61. [66]

    Tensor4d: Efficient neural 4d decomposition for high-fidelity dynamic reconstruction and rendering

    Ruizhi Shao, Zerong Zheng, Hanzhang Tu, Boning Liu, Hongwen Zhang, and Yebin Liu. Tensor4d: Efficient neural 4d decomposition for high-fidelity dynamic reconstruction and rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 166...

    2023

  62. [67]

    Deepvoxels: Learning persistent 3d feature embeddings

    Vincent Sitzmann, Justus Thies, Felix Heide, Matthias Nießner, Gordon Wetzstein, and Michael Zollhofer. Deepvoxels: Learning persistent 3d feature embeddings. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2437–2446, 2019

    2019

  63. [68]

    Nerfplayer: A streamable dynamic scene representation with decomposed neural radiance fields

    Liangchen Song, Anpei Chen, Zhong Li, Zhang Chen, Lele Chen, Junsong Yuan, Yi Xu, and Andreas Geiger. Nerfplayer: A streamable dynamic scene representation with decomposed neural radiance fields. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 29(5): 2732–2742, 2023...

    2023

  64. [69]

    3dgstream: On-the-fly training of 3d gaussians for efficient streaming of photo-realistic free-viewpoint videos

    Jiakai Sun, Han Jiao, Guangyuan Li, Zhanjie Zhang, Lei Zhao, and Wei Xing. 3dgstream: On-the-fly training of 3d gaussians for efficient streaming of photo-realistic free-viewpoint videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01444, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  65. [70]

    Variable bitrate neural fields

    Towaki Takikawa, Alex Evans, Jonathan Tremblay, Thomas Müller, Morgan McGuire, Alec Jacobson, and Sanja Fidler. Variable bitrate neural fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–9, 2022

    2022

  66. [71]

    Compressible-composable nerf via rank-residual decomposition

    Jiaxiang Tang, Xiaokang Chen, Jingbo Wang, and Gang Zeng. Compressible-composable nerf via rank-residual decomposition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 14798–14809, 2022

    2022

  67. [72]

    Ad- vances in neural rendering

    Ayush Tewari, Justus Thies, Ben Mildenhall, Pratul Srinivasan, Edgar Tretschk, Wang Yifan, Christoph Lassner, Vincent Sitzmann, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Stephen Lombardi, et al. Ad- vances in neural rendering. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 41, pages 703–735. Wiley Online L...

    2022

  68. [73]

    Non-rigid neural radiance fields: Reconstruction and novel view synthesis of a dynamic scene from monocular video

    Edgar Tretschk, Ayush Tewari, Vladislav Golyanik, Michael Zollhöfer, Christoph Lassner, and Christian Theobalt. Non-rigid neural radiance fields: Reconstruction and novel view synthesis of a dynamic scene from monocular video. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Visio...

    2021

  69. [74]

    Scenerflow: Time-consistent reconstruction of general dynamic scenes

    Edith Tretschk, Vladislav Golyanik, Michael Zollhöfer, Aljaz Bozic, Christoph Lassner, and Christian Theobalt. Scenerflow: Time-consistent reconstruction of general dynamic scenes. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 2024

    2024

  70. [75]

    Neural trajectory fields for dynamic novel view synthesis

    Chaoyang Wang, Ben Eckart, Simon Lucey, and Orazio Gallo. Neural trajectory fields for dynamic novel view synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05994, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  71. [76]

    Mixed neural voxels for fast multi-view video synthesis

    Feng Wang, Sinan Tan, Xinghang Li, Zeyue Tian, Yafei Song, and Huaping Liu. Mixed neural voxels for fast multi-view video synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 19706–19716, 2023

    2023

  72. [77]

    Fourier plenoctrees for dynamic radiance field rendering in real-time

    Liao Wang, Jiakai Zhang, Xinhang Liu, Fuqiang Zhao, Yanshun Zhang, Yingliang Zhang, Minye Wu, Jingyi Yu, and Lan Xu. Fourier plenoctrees for dynamic radiance field rendering in real-time. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pag...

    2022

  73. [78]

    Neural residual radiance fields for streamably free-viewpoint videos

    Liao Wang, Qiang Hu, Qihan He, Ziyu Wang, Jingyi Yu, Tinne Tuytelaars, Lan Xu, and Minye Wu. Neural residual radiance fields for streamably free-viewpoint videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 76–87, June 2023

    2023

  74. [80]

    Tracking everything everywhere all at once

    Qianqian Wang, Yen-Yu Chang, Ruojin Cai, Zhengqi Li, Bharath Hariharan, Aleksander Holynski, and Noah Snavely. Tracking everything everywhere all at once. In International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023

    2023

  75. [82]

    Humannerf: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video

    Chung-Yi Weng, Brian Curless, Pratul P Srinivasan, Jonathan T Barron, and Ira Kemelmacher- Shlizerman. Humannerf: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern Recognition, pages 16210–1...

    2022

  76. [83]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Wang Xinggang. 4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    Space-time neural irradiance fields for free-viewpoint video

    Wenqi Xian, Jia-Bin Huang, Johannes Kopf, and Changil Kim. Space-time neural irradiance fields for free-viewpoint video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9421–9431, 2021

    2021

  78. [86]

    Neural fields in visual computing and beyond

    Yiheng Xie, Towaki Takikawa, Shunsuke Saito, Or Litany, Shiqin Yan, Numair Khan, Federico Tombari, James Tompkin, Vincent Sitzmann, and Srinath Sridhar. Neural fields in visual computing and beyond. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 41, pages 641–676. Wiley Online Library, 2022

    2022

  79. [87]

    4k4d: Real-time 4d view synthesis at 4k resolution

    Zhen Xu, Sida Peng, Haotong Lin, Guangzhao He, Jiaming Sun, Yujun Shen, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. 4k4d: Real-time 4d view synthesis at 4k resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11448, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Real-time photorealistic dynamic scene representation and rendering with 4d gaussian splatting

    Zeyu Yang, Hongye Yang, Zijie Pan, and Li Zhang. Real-time photorealistic dynamic scene representation and rendering with 4d gaussian splatting. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  81. [89]

    De- formable 3d gaussians for high-fidelity monocular dynamic scene reconstruction

    Ziyi Yang, Xinyu Gao, Wen Zhou, Shaohui Jiao, Yuqing Zhang, and Xiaogang Jin. De- formable 3d gaussians for high-fidelity monocular dynamic scene reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13101, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Yao Yao, Zixin Luo, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, and Long Quan. Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 767–783, 2018

    2018

  83. [91]

    Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields

    Alex Yu, Ruilong Li, Matthew Tancik, Hao Li, Ren Ng, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5752–5761, 2021

    2021

  84. [92]

    Recent trends in 3d reconstruction of general non-rigid scenes

    Raza Yunus, Jan Eric Lenssen, Michael Niemeyer, Yiyi Liao, Christian Rupprecht, Christian Theobalt, Gerard Pons-Moll, Jia-Bin Huang, Vladislav Golyanik, and Eddy Ilg. Recent trends in 3d reconstruction of general non-rigid scenes. In Computer Graphics Forum, page e15062. Wiley...

    2024

  85. [93]

    Neuvv: Neural volumetric videos with immersive rendering and editing

    Jiakai Zhang, Liao Wang, Xinhang Liu, Fuqiang Zhao, Minzhang Li, Haizhao Dai, Boyuan Zhang, Wei Yang, Lan Xu, and Jingyi Yu. Neuvv: Neural volumetric videos with immersive rendering and editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06088, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Humannerf: Efficiently generated human radiance field from sparse inputs

    Fuqiang Zhao, Wei Yang, Jiakai Zhang, Pei Lin, Yingliang Zhang, Jingyi Yu, and Lan Xu. Humannerf: Efficiently generated human radiance field from sparse inputs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7743–7753, June 2022. 16

    2022

  87. [95]

    High-quality video view interpolation using a layered representation.ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 23(3):600–608, 2004

    C Lawrence Zitnick, Sing Bing Kang, Matthew Uyttendaele, Simon Winder, and Richard Szeliski. High-quality video view interpolation using a layered representation.ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 23(3):600–608, 2004

    2004

  88. [96]

    Surface splatting

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross. Surface splatting. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 371–378, 2001. 17 Appendix We provide supplementary results (Appendix A), additional i...

    2001

  89. [97]

    Our claims accurately reflect the contribution and scope of our work

    Claims Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We show extensive experiments and ablations on multiple datasets which are widely used in the area. Our claims accurat...

  90. [98]

    Limitations

    Limitations Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We discuss limitations of our work in our conclusions section. We add further detail on several limitations of our work in Appendix C. Guidelines: • ...

  91. [99]

    All equations for the various components of our work are explained in detail in Sec

    Theory Assumptions and Proofs Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? 27 Answer: [NA] Justification: Our work is not a theory work. All equations for the various components of our work are ex...

  92. [100]

    Experimental Result Reproducibility Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and da...

  93. [101]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code

    Open access to data and code Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [No] Justification: We aim to release the code i...

  94. [102]

    Additional hyperparameters and experiment details are provided in the supplementary materials B

    Experimental Setting/Details Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We follow benchmark and evalu...

  95. [103]

    To our knowledge, most of the existing work in this area do not provide statistical significance

    Experiment Statistical Significance Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments? Answer: [No] Justification: We follow benchmark and evaluation protocols that a...

  96. [104]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiments Compute Resources Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide details incl...

  97. [105]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics

    Code Of Ethics Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Yes, the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the Ne...

  98. [106]

    Guidelines: 30 • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed

    Broader Impacts Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Please see Appendix D where we discuss the potential societal impacts. Guidelines: 30 • The answer NA mea...

  99. [107]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks

    Safeguards Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper poses...

  100. [108]

    We followed their license and we have credited and cited their work and datasets

    Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Our method is ev...

  101. [109]

    Justification: N/A

    New Assets Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets? Answer: [NA] . Justification: N/A. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets. • Researchers should communicate...

  102. [110]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)? A...

  103. [111]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.