Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 33 references

CE-NPBG: Connectivity Enhanced Neural Point-Based Graphics for Novel View Synthesis in Autonomous Driving Scenes

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that building a connectivity relationship graph between posed images and LiDAR points, and retrieving only visible points for rasterization, resolves the appearance–geometry mismatch that degrades large-scale point-based…

desk verdict Plausible visibility-retrieval heuristic for point-based NVS, but the 3DGS evidence is confounded and the SOTA claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19557 v1 pith:T3TZ2WKJ submitted 2025-04-28 cs.CV

Mohammad Altillawi , Fengyi Shen , Liudi Yang , Sai Manoj Prakhya , Ziyuan Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords novelviewsynthesisneuralpoint-basedgraphicsLiDARpointcloudsvisibilityestimationconnectivitygraphautonomousdriving3DGaussianSplattingadversarialtraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the low quality of large-scale point-based novel view synthesis comes from a visibility mismatch: when the full accumulated LiDAR map is projected into a camera, many occluded or out-of-view points land on the image, so the geometry being rasterized disagrees with the image appearance. To fix this, it builds a connectivity relationship graph that links each posed image to the LiDAR scans around it, then prunes by depth, so only points actually visible from the camera are retrieved and rasterized. The paper claims this restores appearance–geometry compatibility, improves rendering quality on KITTI-360 scenes, and makes fitting more scalable, for example letting 3D Gaussian Splatting fit a 36.3-million-point sequence that otherwise fails. A sympathetic reader would care because the same visibility problem affects any forward-rendering method built on large LiDAR maps in autonomous driving, and the connectivity graph is a reusable fix that does not depend on the renderer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the connectivity relationship graph between appearance (posed images) and geometry (LiDAR point cloud). It is built in two stages: the greedy stage isolates a local window of scans around each image (n scans behind and 2n ahead, with n = 5), and the pruning stage projects the candidate points and keeps only those inside the image bounds with positive depth and shortest depth per pixel. This graph is constructed once and then queried at fitting and rendering time by retrieving the points attached to the closest camera pose. The other machinery is the rasterization pyramid: visible point descriptors are splatted at five resolutions, and a U-Net synthesizer with gated convolutions converts the rasterized descriptors into an RGB image while a multi-resolution LSGAN discriminator, used only during training, pushes the synthesizer toward realistic outputs. The connectivity graph does the load-bearing work of keeping geometry and appearance consistent; the adversarial branch adds a smaller, measurable gain.

What would settle it

One would measure retrieval precision and recall of the connectivity graph on held-out novel poses by comparing its selected points against a reference visibility map computed by ray-casting the accumulated LiDAR cloud (or by dense depth from a multi-view reconstruction). If the retrieved set omits a substantial fraction of visible points or includes many occluded ones, and the omission grows with distance from the nearest training pose, the core explanation for the quality gain would be discredited; likewise, varying the window size n and showing the gain vanishes at n = 1 or n = 20 would indicate the result is an artifact of the chosen window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the failure of point-based rendering on large driving scenes is not primarily a capacity or representation problem but a visibility-selection problem: using the entire accumulated point cloud for every view trains and renders with many unseen points, corrupting both descriptors and pixels. The solution is a two-stage connectivity relationship graph built once from the posed images and LiDAR scans: a greedy stage attaches each image to nearby scans (five behind, ten ahead) to ensure coverage, and a pruning stage keeps only points that lie in front of the camera and are closest to it per pixel. Rendering then retrieves only the connected, visible points for the nearest pose. The paper reports that this raises PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS over NPBG, NPBG++, READ, DS-NeRF, and 3DGS on all tested KITTI-360 sub-sequences, and that applying the same connectivity to 3DGS converts a failed 36.3-million-point optimization into one that fits and renders, with per-frame render time dropping from 0.046 s to 0.00089 s.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach rests on the fixed local isolation window (five scans behind, ten ahead) plus a depth check being a reliable predictor of which points are actually visible from a camera pose; if that heuristic misses visible geometry or admits occluded points, the renderings would contain holes or the mismatch it was meant to remove would return.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any forward-rendering method that uses large LiDAR maps can adopt the connectivity graph as a visibility prefilter, since it is built once and queried with a nearest-pose lookup.
  • Fitting and rendering memory requirements drop to only the visible subset of the point cloud, so scenes with tens of millions of points fit on a single 48 GB GPU.
  • The reported render-time improvement (from 0.046 s to 0.00089 s per frame for 3DGS) suggests connectivity-based retrieval could move large-scene rendering toward interactive rates.
  • Because the graph is pose-indexed, novel views near a training pose inherit that pose's visibility, so the method should generalize best along continuous driving trajectories rather than across large pose gaps.
  • The adversarial branch is optional: the ablation shows most of the quality gain comes from connectivity, with a smaller increment from the discriminator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the connectivity graph is truly reusable across renderers, the same precomputed visibility index could be plugged into other point-based or Gaussian splatting systems, effectively decoupling visibility estimation from scene representation; the paper demonstrates this only for 3DGS but the mechanism is renderer-agnostic.
  • The fixed window (five scans behind, ten ahead) assumes a forward-moving camera and a roughly constant LiDAR density; adapting the window size to local scan density or pose spacing could be a straightforward improvement, and the paper's lack of a sweep over n leaves this untested.
  • The authors treat appearance–geometry mismatch as the primary failure cause, but the same connectivity retrieval also reduces the number of points entering the loss, which speeds convergence independently of visibility correctness; separating these two effects would clarify how much of the gain is purely from pruning.
  • A testable extension is to use the connectivity graph to supervise visibility learning: the retrieved sets could serve as pseudo-labels to train a fast visibility predictor that works at arbitrary novel poses without a graph lookup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CE-NPBG, a neural point-based rendering method for novel view synthesis in large-scale autonomous driving scenes. The method builds a connectivity graph between posed images and an accumulated LiDAR point cloud by selecting, for each image, a temporal window of LiDAR scans (n behind and 2n ahead, with n=5) followed by depth-based pruning; only the retrieved points are rasterized and processed by a U-Net synthesizer trained with a multi-resolution LSGAN discriminator and a perceptual loss. The paper also integrates the connectivity retrieval into 3D Gaussian Splatting and reports improvements in fitting quality and scalability. Experiments on three KITTI360 sub-sequences compare against NPBG, NPBG++, READ, DS-NeRF, and 3DGS, reporting PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS numbers in Table 2 and 3DGS integration results in Table 3.

Significance. The paper identifies a real and practically important problem: accumulated LiDAR maps contain points that are not visible from a given camera pose, and projecting all of them into the image plane degrades renderings. The connectivity-based retrieval is a simple, plausible heuristic for selecting view-relevant points, and the reported integration with 3DGS shows a large improvement in fitting quality and enables optimization on a 36.3M-point sequence that otherwise fails. If the connectivity mechanism is validated with proper controls, the method would be a useful step toward scalable point-based NVS for driving scenes. The strengths include the use of a public dataset (KITTI360), standard metrics, and external baselines. However, the evidence as presented does not isolate the connectivity contribution from a 27x reduction in point count, and the claim of uniform superiority over the baselines is contradicted on the LPIPS metric for one sequence; the paper also does not release code or data, which limits reproducibility of the non-trivial preprocessing steps.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.5, Table 3] The 3DGS+Connectivity experiment confounds the connectivity mechanism with a 27x reduction in the number of optimized points; on KITTI-4-reduced, 3DGS uses 19,403,162 points while 3DGS+Connectivity uses only 720,000, and the reported PSNR gain from 19.61 to 28.57 dB cannot be attributed to the temporal-window heuristic without control experiments such as a uniformly random 720K-point subset or a global depth-buffer over the full accumulated cloud.
  2. [§4.4, Table 2] The abstract and §4.4 claim that the method 'exceeds the different state-of-the-art rendering methods', but on KITTI-0 the LPIPS of CE-NPBG is 0.34 versus 0.32 for NPBG++, so the method does not uniformly outperform on all reported metrics; the claim should be qualified or backed with additional evidence such as error bars and per-sequence analysis.
  3. [§3, Visibility Estimation from Connectivity Relationship] The connectivity graph is defined by a fixed local-isolation window (n=5 scans behind, 2n=10 ahead) and depth-based pruning, but the paper provides no sensitivity analysis for n and no precision/recall evaluation of the retrieved points against ground-truth visibility, e.g., points hit by the current LiDAR scan; without these, the load-bearing assumption that the window reliably contains all visible geometry and excludes occluded points remains unverified, particularly for novel poses distant from the nearest training pose.
  4. [§4.5] The sentence claiming that 3DGS 'still underperforms our neural point-based rendering approach, even when combined with our connectivity relationship' is a comparative result that is not shown anywhere in the paper; either the results should be added to a table or the sentence should be removed as unsupported.
  5. [Tables 2-4] No error bars, repeated runs, or significance tests are reported; given that the PSNR gaps over NPBG++ are around 1 dB on some sequences and that one LPIPS comparison is reversed, the robustness of the reported improvements is unclear.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The acronym 'CE-NBPG' appears in 'we propose CE-NBPG' and should be 'CE-NPBG'.
  2. [§3, Equations (1)-(2)] The union notation 'T[ t=1' is unclear; an explicit big-union symbol with limits under the summation would be easier to read.
  3. [§4.2] 'A NerF-based approach' should be 'a NeRF-based approach'.
  4. [§4.3] The statement that DS-NeRF required 'certain adaptations' is vague; listing the concrete changes (coordinate frame, normalization, learning-rate adjustments) would aid reproducibility.
  5. [§4.5, Table 4] The caption says 'run-time improvements from using our connectivity relationship on 3DGS', but the table reports only render time and FPS; the effect on training or fitting time is not discussed.
  6. [General] The manuscript does not mention code or data release; given the complexity of the connectivity-graph construction, releasing the preprocessing code would significantly help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the connectivity heuristic is not derived from the rendering metrics, and the only self-citation is background context.

full rationale

CE-NPBG's central mechanism, the connectivity relationship graph, is a preprocessing heuristic built from temporal local isolation (n=5 scans behind, 2n=10 ahead) and depth-based pruning. It is not fitted to the test metrics and does not define the predicted images in terms of the reported PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS values. The rendering losses (reconstruction, perceptual, and LSGAN adversarial losses) are standard and applied to external KITTI360 sequences with held-out frames, so the reported comparisons are against real baselines on public data. The only self-citation, [22] by co-author Fengyi Shen, appears in a list of GAN references in the related work and is not load-bearing for any derivation. The reviewer's concern that the 3DGS+connectivity experiment confounds visibility retrieval with a 27x reduction in optimized points (720K vs 19.4M) is a legitimate experimental-design criticism, but it is not a circularity: the connectivity subset is not constructed from the outcome metric, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Similarly, the absence of retrieval precision/recall or sensitivity to n is an evidence gap, not a self-referential reduction. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of a previously fitted parameter of this method, and no uniqueness claim or prior result by the authors is imported to force the method's choice. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the connectivity graph heuristic and standard NPBG-style descriptor learning. There are no physically invented entities; the main unverified load-bearing assumption is the completeness and correctness of the visibility retrieval.

free parameters (2)
  • n (number of LiDAR scans behind the camera for local isolation) = 5
    The connectivity graph window is defined as n scans behind and 2n ahead; the paper uses n=5 without sensitivity analysis, and this directly controls which points are retrieved.
  • Number of rasterization pyramid levels T and discriminator scales Ns = T=5, Ns=5
    Set to 5 in all experiments; no ablation is shown for these architecture choices, though they control the multi-scale synthesis and adversarial feedback.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Cameras and LiDAR are synchronized and calibrated (standard for KITTI360).
    The method relies on accurate poses and intrinsics to build the connectivity graph and rasterize points; §4.1 states the use of KITTI360 geolocalized poses.
  • domain assumption Points from the n-behind/2n-ahead window, after depth pruning, are exactly the visible points.
    This is the core visibility model in §3; the paper asserts it resolves the mismatch but does not validate retrieval accuracy against ground-truth visibility.
  • domain assumption 8D neural descriptors can encode sufficient appearance and geometry for a U-Net to synthesize RGB images.
    Inherited from NPBG; the paper optimizes descriptors but does not analyze the descriptor dimensionality or capacity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CE-NPBG: Connectivity Enhanced Neural Point-Based Graphics for Novel View Synthesis in Autonomous Driving Scenes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3TZ2WKJ

@misc{pith2026250419557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CE-NPBG: Connectivity Enhanced Neural Point-Based Graphics for Novel View Synthesis in Autonomous Driving Scenes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3TZ2WKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19557}
}
read the original abstract

Current point-based approaches encounter limitations in scalability and rendering quality when using large 3D point cloud maps because using them directly for novel view synthesis (NVS) leads to degraded visualizations. We identify the primary issue behind these low-quality renderings as a visibility mismatch between geometry and appearance, stemming from using these two modalities together. To address this problem, we present CE-NPBG, a new approach for novel view synthesis (NVS) in large-scale autonomous driving scenes. Our method is a neural point-based technique that leverages two modalities: posed images (cameras) and synchronized raw 3D point clouds (LiDAR). We first employ a connectivity relationship graph between appearance and geometry, which retrieves points from a large 3D point cloud map observed from the current camera perspective and uses them for rendering. By leveraging this connectivity, our method significantly improves rendering quality and enhances run-time and scalability by using only a small subset of points from the large 3D point cloud map. Our approach associates neural descriptors with the points and uses them to synthesize views. To enhance the encoding of these descriptors and elevate rendering quality, we propose a joint adversarial and point rasterization training. During training, we pair an image-synthesizer network with a multi-resolution discriminator. At inference, we decouple them and use the image-synthesizer to generate novel views. We also integrate our proposal into the recent 3D Gaussian Splatting work to highlight its benefits for improved rendering and scalability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left side shows the projection of 3D points into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our CE-NPBG: a scene is represented by source images and a point cloud. To render a novel view (yellow camera), a visibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Different proposals to address large point cloud rendering: a) clipping points outside certain threshold, b) clustering of the scene, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rendering results of our method and other state-of-the-art methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Using our proposed connectivity relationship for visibil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neural point-based graph- ics

    Kara-Ali Aliev, Artem Sevastopolsky, Maria Kolos, Dmitry Ulyanov, and Victor Lempitsky. Neural point-based graph- ics. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , pages 696–712, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral 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 neu- ral radiance fields. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5855–5864, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Depth synthesis and local warps for plausible image-based navigation

    Gaurav Chaurasia, Sylvain Duchene, Olga Sorkine- Hornung, and George Drettakis. Depth synthesis and local warps for plausible image-based navigation. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics, 32(3):1–12, 2013. 2

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Depth-supervised NeRF: Fewer views and faster training for free

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised NeRF: Fewer views and faster training for free. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, 2022. 5, 6

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Deepstereo: Learning to predict new views from the world’s imagery

    John Flynn, Ivan Neulander, James Philbin, and Noah Snavely. Deepstereo: Learning to predict new views from the world’s imagery. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 5515–5524, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps

    Stephan J Garbin, Marek Kowalski, Matthew Johnson, Jamie Shotton, and Julien Valentin. Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps. In IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 14346–14355, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Multi-view stereo for commu- nity photo collections

    Michael Goesele, Noah Snavely, Brian Curless, Hugues Hoppe, and Steven M Seitz. Multi-view stereo for commu- nity photo collections. In2007 IEEE 11th International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2007. 2

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2014. 3

    2014

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Scalable inside-out image-based render- ing

    Peter Hedman, Tobias Ritschel, George Drettakis, and Gabriel Brostow. Scalable inside-out image-based render- ing. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6):1–11, 2016. 2

    2016

  2. [10]

    Percep- tual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution

    Justin Johnson, Alexandre Alahi, and Li Fei-Fei. Percep- tual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Confer- ence, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14, pages 694–711. Springer, 2016. 5

    2016

  3. [11]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 3

    2019

  4. [12]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4):1–14, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2023

  5. [13]

    Point-based neural rendering with per- view optimization

    Georgios Kopanas, Julien Philip, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. Point-based neural rendering with per- view optimization. In Computer Graphics Forum, pages 29–

  6. [14]

    The use of points as a dis- play primitive

    Marc Levoy and Turner Whitted. The use of points as a dis- play primitive. 2000. 1

    2000

  7. [15]

    Read: Large-scale neural scene rendering for autonomous driving

    Zhuopeng Li, Lu Li, and Jianke Zhu. Read: Large-scale neural scene rendering for autonomous driving. AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(2):1522–1529, 2023. 3, 5, 6

    2023

  8. [16]

    Least squares generative adversarial networks

    Xudong Mao, Qing Li, Haoran Xie, Raymond YK Lau, Zhen Wang, and Stephen Paul Smolley. Least squares generative adversarial networks. In IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2794–2802, 2017. 4

    2017

  9. [17]

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

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  10. [18]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics, 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  11. [19]

    Npbg++: Accelerating neural point-based graphics

    Ruslan Rakhimov, Andrei-Timotei Ardelean, Victor Lempit- sky, and Evgeny Burnaev. Npbg++: Accelerating neural point-based graphics. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 15969–15979,

  12. [20]

    Ganerf: Leveraging discriminators to optimize neural radiance fields

    Barbara Roessle, Norman M ¨uller, Lorenzo Porzi, Samuel Rota Bul `o, Peter Kontschieder, and Matthias Nießner. Ganerf: Leveraging discriminators to optimize neural radiance fields. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(6):1–14, 2023. 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm

    Johannes L. Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4104–4113,

    2016

  14. [22]

    Tridentadapt: Learn- ing domain-invariance via source-target confrontation and self-induced cross-domain augmentation

    Fengyi Shen, Akhil Gurram, Ahmet Faruk Tuna, Onay Urfalioglu, and Alois Knoll. Tridentadapt: Learn- ing domain-invariance via source-target confrontation and self-induced cross-domain augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.15300, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d

    Noah Snavely, Steven M Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d. In ACM SIG- GRAPH 2006 papers, pages 835–846. 2006. 2

    2006

  16. [24]

    Mildenhall, Pratul Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Matthew Tancik, Vincent Casser, Xinchen Yan, Sabeek Prad- han, Ben P. Mildenhall, Pratul Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Bar- ron, and Henrik Kretzschmar. Block-nerf: Scalable large scene neural view synthesis. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , p...

    2022

  17. [25]

    De- ferred neural rendering: Image synthesis using neural tex- tures

    Justus Thies, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, and Matthias Nießner. De- ferred neural rendering: Image synthesis using neural tex- tures. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 38(4):1–12, 2019. 2

    2019

  18. [26]

    Mega-nerf: Scalable construction of large-scale nerfs for virtual fly-throughs

    Haithem Turki, Deva Ramanan, and Mahadev Satya- narayanan. Mega-nerf: Scalable construction of large-scale nerfs for virtual fly-throughs. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 12922– 12931, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  19. [27]

    Multi-view stereo in the deep learning era: A comprehensive review

    Xiang Wang, Chen Wang, Bing Liu, Xiaoqing Zhou, Liang Zhang, Jin Zheng, and Xiao Bai. Multi-view stereo in the deep learning era: A comprehensive review. Displays, 70: 102102, 2021. 2

    2021

  20. [28]

    Style-based point generator with ad- versarial rendering for point cloud completion

    Chulin Xie, Chuxin Wang, Bo Zhang, Hao Yang, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Style-based point generator with ad- versarial rendering for point cloud completion. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4619–4628, 2021. 3

    2021

  21. [29]

    Sinnerf: Training neural radiance fields on complex scenes from a single image

    Dejia Xu, Yifan Jiang, Peihao Wang, Zhiwen Fan, Humphrey Shi, and Zhangyang Wang. Sinnerf: Training neural radiance fields on complex scenes from a single image. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 736–753. Springer,

  22. [30]

    Mpr-gan: A novel neural rendering framework for mls point cloud with deep generative learning

    Qingyang Xu, Xuefeng Guan, Jun Cao, Yanli Ma, and Huayi Wu. Mpr-gan: A novel neural rendering framework for mls point cloud with deep generative learning. IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–16, 2022. 3

    2022

  23. [31]

    Nerfusion: Fusing radiance fields for large- scale scene reconstruction

    Xiaoshuai Zhang, Sai Bi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Hao Su, and Zexiang Xu. Nerfusion: Fusing radiance fields for large- scale scene reconstruction. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5449– 5458, 2022. 2

    2022

  24. [32]

    View synthesis by appearance flow

    Tinghui Zhou, Shubham Tulsiani, Weilun Sun, Jitendra Ma- lik, and Alexei A Efros. View synthesis by appearance flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Confer- ence, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 14, pages 286–301. Springer, 2016. 2

    2016

  25. [43]

    Wiley Online Library, 2021. 2

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.