Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Multiview Geometric Regularization of Gaussian Splatting for Accurate Radiance Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gaussian Splatting surfaces become markedly more accurate when MVS depth priors guide both initialization and a multiview median-depth loss.

desk verdict A well-ablated, honest methods paper that shows real geometry gains from MVS-guided regularization of Gaussian Splatting, with the main caveat that the MVS-bias failure mode is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13508 v1 pith:F5CNO3UW submitted 2025-06-16 cs.CV

Jungeon Kim , Geonsoo Park , Seungyong Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords GaussianSplattingmultiviewstereosurfacereconstructionmediandepthlossradiancefieldsgeometricregularizationMVS-guidedinitialization
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

3D Gaussian Splatting renders fast but its reconstructed surfaces are often noisy or wrong. This paper claims that fusing multiview stereo (MVS) depth with Gaussian Splatting at two points—initialization and optimization—produces smooth, accurate geometry while keeping rendering quality. The key move is a relative depth loss that compares the rendered median depth against MVS depth, only activates when the two roughly agree, and weights itself by how certain the rendering is. On the DTU benchmark the mean Chamfer distance falls from 0.74 (GOF baseline) to 0.63, and on Tanks and Temples the F1 score rises from 0.46 to 0.52. Those numbers make the claim concrete: explicit splatting methods no longer have to choose between speed and geometric fidelity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the multiview median-depth relative loss $L_{\mathrm{rel}} = \lvert 1 - D_{\mathrm{mvs}}/D_r \rvert \cdot U \cdot \mathbb{1}(\lvert D_r - D_{\mathrm{mvs}}\rvert < s D_r)$, where $D_r$ is the rendered median depth (the largest depth with accumulated transmittance above 0.5), $U$ is the accumulated opacity along the ray, and $s$ is a threshold annealed from 0.15 to 0.05. This loss converts MVS depths into a soft attractor that is active only when the current Gaussian-splatting depth and the MVS depth roughly agree, and its pull is scaled by rendering certainty. It is evaluated across triplets of adjacent views, together with multiview extensions of RGB, normal-consistency, and depth-distortion losses. The companion mechanism is MVS-guided initialization: voxel-filtered MVS points seed the Gaussians, and an initial phase that freezes positions while pruning low-opacity Gaussians removes outliers before the main optimization.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take a scene with a ground-truth mesh, perturb all MVS depths by a constant fraction smaller than the annealing threshold (say 4 percent) and rerun the pipeline; if the output surface shifts by roughly that amount, the method is letting systematically biased priors through the gate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MVS-derived depth and Gaussian Splatting's optimized points are complementary, and that an optimization scheme can harvest both. MVS patch matching with epipolar constraints is reliable in well-textured regions but noisy near boundaries; Gaussian Splatting handles boundaries but can drift under view-dependent appearance. The authors exploit this by initializing Gaussians from filtered MVS point clouds, then adding a multiview relative depth loss whose reference is the rendered median depth, with accumulated opacity as uncertainty. The loss rejects MVS depths that deviate beyond an annealed threshold and pulls the Gaussians toward the remaining depths. Ablations show that neither initialization nor the depth loss alone is enough: the full combination is what removes noise and keeps surfaces smooth.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that MVS depth estimates, after heuristic geometric filtering, are accurate enough in textured regions to serve as a valid geometric prior, and that the threshold rule $|D_r - D_{\mathrm{mvs}}| < s D_r$ reliably separates good MVS depths from bad ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On DTU, the mean Chamfer distance drops from 0.74 for GOF to 0.63, and on Tanks and Temples the mean F1 score rises from 0.46 to 0.52.
  • On Mip-NeRF360, novel-view synthesis stays close to the strongest appearance-only methods, with LPIPS 0.197 on outdoor and 0.172 on indoor scenes.
  • The additional cost is roughly 4 minutes of MVS depth estimation on DTU and 35 minutes on Tanks and Temples, plus longer optimization from denser Gaussian sets.
  • The method remains an explicit splatting pipeline, so it keeps the fast, differentiable rendering of GOF while improving geometric fidelity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to replace the hard indicator threshold with a robust weighting, which could recover scenes where MVS depths are systematically biased by less than the threshold.
  • The same median-depth-plus-confidence recipe may transfer to other explicit primitives, such as surfels or 2D disks, that already have ray-splat intersection logic.
  • Because the method depends on MVS patch matching, its gains plausibly shrink on textureless or heavily specular scenes; that is a testable boundary rather than a contradiction.
  • One could isolate the value of epipolar consistency by feeding monocular depth through the identical loss and initialization; if the gains persist, the essential ingredient is the prior, not the multiview matching.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multiview geometric regularization strategy for Gaussian Splatting, building on Gaussian Opacity Fields (GOF). The method has three main components: an MVS-guided initialization that produces a dense, geometrically informed starting point; a median-depth-based multiview relative depth loss with a rendering-uncertainty weight that aligns Gaussian positions with MVS depth estimates; and multiview extensions of RGB photometric, normal-consistency, and depth-distortion losses. Experiments on DTU, Tanks and Temples, and Mip-NeRF360 report improved surface reconstruction over GOF (DTU mean Chamfer distance 0.63 vs 0.74 mm; TnT mean F1 0.52 vs 0.46) with roughly maintained or slightly improved novel-view synthesis metrics. The paper includes component-wise ablations on one Mip-NeRF360 scene and aggregate ablations on DTU/TnT.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to explicit Gaussian-splatting surface reconstruction by demonstrating that MVS depth priors can be combined with splatting optimization to improve geometry without sacrificing rendering quality. The paper's strengths are its clear component-wise ablation study (Figures 4 and 5), the consistent per-scene improvement over GOF on both DTU and TnT, and the breadth of comparisons against implicit and explicit baselines. The proposed relative depth loss with median-depth rendering and accumulated-alpha uncertainty is simple and plausible. However, the central claim depends on an assumption, stated in Section 7, that MVS depths are more accurate than the unregularized Gaussian geometry; the paper does not experimentally stress this assumption, and the rejection rule in Eq. (3) has a feedback-coupling property that is not analyzed. These concerns are addressable with additional experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] The rejection gate in Eq. (3) uses the rendered median depth D_r as the reference for accepting or rejecting MVS depths, but D_r is the very quantity being optimized by this loss. This creates a feedback coupling: if the early optimization drifts (for instance, due to appearance-geometry ambiguity in specular or view-dependent regions), the gate preferentially retains MVS depths consistent with the biased D_r and discards corrective depths, so a systematic MVS bias can be locked in rather than corrected. The Limitations section (Section 7) acknowledges that MVS may be unreliable, but it does not address this coupling. Because the central geometry claim relies on the retained MVS depths being more accurate than the current Gaussian geometry, please add an experiment that directly tests this assumption, for example by injecting a known systematic bias into the MVS depths on a synthetic scene with ground truth and measuring whether the filter recovers or amplifies the bias.
  2. [Section 6.3, Tables 1 and 2] The main geometry comparisons report single-run numbers without error bars, significance tests, or multiple seeds. The per-scene improvements over GOF are often small (e.g., DTU scan24: 0.43 vs 0.50 mm; TnT Ignatius: 0.67 vs 0.68 F1), so without variance information it is difficult to determine whether the mean improvement from 0.74 to 0.63 mm (DTU) and from 0.46 to 0.52 F1 (TnT) is robust to optimization noise. Please report variance across at least three seeds for the primary comparison with GOF, or justify why single runs are representative.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Figures 4/5] The paper claims that the uncertainty term U = Σ_i ω_i is a key component of the relative depth loss, but no ablation isolates its contribution. Figures 4 and 5 vary multiple components simultaneously (for example, (e) vs (f) adds both MVS-guided initialization and multiview normal/depth-distortion losses together with the uncertainty-weighted depth loss), so the reader cannot tell whether U improves results over an unweighted relative depth loss. Please add an ablation with U removed or set to 1, and report its effect on both DTU and TnT metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1, Abstract] The introduction and abstract claim that the method outperforms state-of-the-art models in both novel-view synthesis and surface reconstruction, but Table 3 shows that 3DGS-MCMC achieves higher PSNR, SSIM, and lower LPIPS on Mip-NeRF360, and the paper later states it is second-best overall. Please rephrase the NVS claim to match the reported results.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] The threshold parameter s is used in Eq. (3) but is only defined later in Section 6.1; please define it near the equation or refer forward explicitly.
  3. [Section 2.1 referenced [LHH25]] Reference [LHH25] is cited for using monocular depth priors to handle weakly textured regions, but the reference title 'Multi-plane Gaussian Splatting for compact scenes rendering' does not appear to match that description; please verify the citation.
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] The training-time notation '58.1m + α' and '75.1m + α' with α defined as approximately 4m (DTU) and 35m (TnT) is confusing because α has different meanings in the two tables; consider reporting a single total time or a clearer breakdown.
  5. [Section 2.1 heading] The heading 'Neural Radience Field' contains a typo; it should read 'Neural Radiance Field'.
  6. [Figure 4 caption] The caption uses 'multview normal and depth distortion losses' in the description of configuration (f); this should be 'multiview'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MVS depth prior is an external input and the geometry claims are validated against ground-truth scans.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding MVS-derived depth supervision to Gaussian Opacity Fields improves reconstructed geometry. The proposed relative depth loss (Eq. 3) compares an externally computed MVS depth D_mvs with the rendered median depth D_r; D_mvs is produced by an independent PatchMatch MVS algorithm (Schönberger et al.) and is not defined in terms of the Gaussian parameters or the loss. The MVS-guided initialization also uses the same external depth points, but double use of an external prior is not circular. The thresholding indicator in Eq. 3 uses the current rendered depth only to reject outlier MVS values, which is a standard robust-estimation gate, not a derivation of the output from itself. The limitations section explicitly states the dependency: 'our multiview geometric regularization strategy relies on the fundamental assumption that Multi-View Stereo (MVS) depth estimates are generally more accurate than the initial or unregularized Gaussian Splatting geometry, especially in well-textured regions.' That is an acknowledged external-supervision assumption, not a hidden circular reduction. Evaluation metrics (DTU Chamfer distance, TnT F1) are computed against independent ground-truth scans, and the comparison baselines (3DGS, 2DGS, GOF) are cited works by other groups, with no load-bearing self-citation chain. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptical concern about feedback in the MVS-depth gate is a limitation of the prior's reliability, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on empirical hyperparameters and on the reliability of MVS depth priors. No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The method is an engineering combination of existing components (GOF, 2DGS regularizers, MVS) plus new loss terms, so the ledger is dominated by hand-set constants and domain assumptions about MVS and median depth.

free parameters (8)
  • lambda_rel = 1
    Weight for the relative depth loss in Eq. (4); fixed across all experiments.
  • lambda_d = 100
    Weight for multiview depth distortion loss in Eq. (4).
  • lambda_n = 0.05
    Weight for multiview normal consistency loss in Eq. (4).
  • N_prun = 2000 iterations
    Duration of the center-freeze pruning phase in MVS-guided initialization (Section 5.2).
  • K' (target point count) = 6M points
    Target Gaussian count after voxel filtering of the aggregated MVS point cloud (Section 5.2).
  • l (initial voxel size) = 0.005 m
    Starting voxel size for downsampling the MVS point cloud; increased by factor 1.5 until target count is reached (Section 5.2).
  • s (threshold tolerance) = 0.15, annealed to 0.1 at 7000 iterations and 0.05 at 20000 iterations
    Tolerance for accepting MVS depth in Eq. (3); the annealing schedule is hand-set and used across all experiments (Section 6.1).
  • tau (opacity pruning threshold) = not specified
    Threshold for removing Gaussians whose opacity drops below tau during the pruning phase; the paper never states the numerical value, which is a reproducibility gap.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MVS depths after heuristic filtering are reliable in textured regions.
    The entire regularization uses MVS depth as supervision; if this fails, geometry is pulled onto wrong surfaces. Stated in the Limitations section.
  • domain assumption Median depth Dr = max{ti | Ti > 0.5} approximates the surface location along a ray.
    Adopted from 2DGS [HYC*24]; the relative depth loss compares this rendered depth to MVS depth. If median depth is biased, the loss is biased.
  • domain assumption GOF's ray-Gaussian rendering model and its baseline regularization losses are correct and effective.
    The method builds directly on GOF [YSG24] and its rendering equation (Eq. 1); the multiview losses are extensions of 2DGS/GOF regularizers.
  • domain assumption During the center-freeze pruning phase, opacity decay identifies noisy Gaussians.
    MVS-guided initialization prunes Gaussians whose opacity drops below tau, assuming that opacity decay corresponds to noise rather than useful geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper Rendering uncertainty U = accumulated alpha is a meaningful confidence measure.
    Defined as U = sum omega_i, this quantity is high both for a sharp surface and for a wide semi-transparent cloud, so it is a rough heuristic rather than a calibrated uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiview Geometric Regularization of Gaussian Splatting for Accurate Radiance Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5CNO3UW

@misc{pith2026250613508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiview Geometric Regularization of Gaussian Splatting for Accurate Radiance Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5CNO3UW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13508}
}
read the original abstract

Recent methods, such as 2D Gaussian Splatting and Gaussian Opacity Fields, have aimed to address the geometric inaccuracies of 3D Gaussian Splatting while retaining its superior rendering quality. However, these approaches still struggle to reconstruct smooth and reliable geometry, particularly in scenes with significant color variation across viewpoints, due to their per-point appearance modeling and single-view optimization constraints. In this paper, we propose an effective multiview geometric regularization strategy that integrates multiview stereo (MVS) depth, RGB, and normal constraints into Gaussian Splatting initialization and optimization. Our key insight is the complementary relationship between MVS-derived depth points and Gaussian Splatting-optimized positions: MVS robustly estimates geometry in regions of high color variation through local patch-based matching and epipolar constraints, whereas Gaussian Splatting provides more reliable and less noisy depth estimates near object boundaries and regions with lower color variation. To leverage this insight, we introduce a median depth-based multiview relative depth loss with uncertainty estimation, effectively integrating MVS depth information into Gaussian Splatting optimization. We also propose an MVS-guided Gaussian Splatting initialization to avoid Gaussians falling into suboptimal positions. Extensive experiments validate that our approach successfully combines these strengths, enhancing both geometric accuracy and rendering quality across diverse indoor and outdoor scenes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of our and GOF [YSG24] reconstructions from RGB images on the Tanks and Temple ‘Barn’ scene [KPZK17]. Our method reconstructs high-fidelity and smooth surfaces, compared to the state-of-the-art Gaussian Splatting-based surface reconstruction approach [YSG24]. The bottom row shows some of the input RGB images. Abstract Recent methods, such as 2D Gaussian Splatting and Gaussian Opacity Fields, have aimed to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Complementary relationship between depths estimated by Multiview Stereo (MVS) [SZPF16] and depths rendered by GOF [YSG24]. MVS estimates accurate depths in well-textured re￾gions but often produces noisy depths near object boundaries (top). In contrast, GOF effectively represents sharp object boundaries but may yield geometrically inaccurate surfaces, particularly in re￾gions with view-dependent appearance variation… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of novel view synthesis quality on the Mip-NeRF360 ’room’ and ’garden’ scenes [BMV∗ 22]. Our method faithfully reconstructs the appearance of scenes, compared to other state-of-the-art approaches (3DGS [KKLD23], 2DGS [HYC∗ 24], GOF [YSG24]). Lrel = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study on the impact of our proposed components on the Mip-NeRF360 ‘room’ scene [BMV∗ 22]. We demonstrate the effect of adding our proposed components to the baseline GOF framework [YSG24] on geometry and Novel View Synthesis (NVS). The inset table provides qua…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study evaluating the impact of our proposed components on the Tanks and Temples (TnT) [KPZK17] and DTU [JDV∗ 14] datasets. We start with the GOF framework [YSG24] as a baseline and progressively add our components to demonstrate their effects on geometry recon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of 3D meshes reconstructed using GOF [YSG24] and our framework on the DTU dataset [JDV∗ 14]. © 2025 Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of 3D meshes reconstructed using GOF [YSG24] and our framework on the TnT dataset [KPZK17]. © 2025 Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

  1. Reconstructing 4D Spatial Intelligence: A Survey

    cs.CV 2025-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review that classifies 4D scene reconstruction methods into five progressive levels: low-level cues, scene components, dynamic scenes, interactions, and physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry.original add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 i...

  3. [3]

    T., Mildenhall B., Verbin D., Srinivasan P

    Barron J. T., Mildenhall B., Verbin D., Srinivasan P. P., Hedman P. : Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2022), pp. 5470--5479

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    : Mobilenerf: Exploiting the polygon rasterization pipeline for efficient neural field rendering on mobile architectures

    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 (2023), pp. 16569--16578

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    : A volumetric method for building complex models from range images

    Curless B., Levoy M. : A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (1996), pp. 303--312

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    L., Tagliasacchi A., Sitzmann V

    Charatan D., Li S. L., Tagliasacchi A., Sitzmann V. : pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2024), pp. 19457--19467

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    : Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images

    Chen Y., Xu H., Zheng C., Zhuang B., Pollefeys M., Geiger A., Cham T.-J., Cai J. : Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images. In European Conference on Computer Vision (2024), Springer, pp. 370--386

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    : Multiview stereo via noise suppression patchmatch

    Chen J., Zhu A., Yu Y., Ma J. : Multiview stereo via noise suppression patchmatch. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 73 (2024), 1--13

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    : High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels

    Dai P., Xu J., Xie W., Liu X., Wang H., Xu W. : High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers (2024), pp. 1--11

    2024

  2. [10]

    J., Wimmer M

    Erler P., Guerrero P., Ohrhallinger S., Mitra N. J., Wimmer M. : Points2surf learning implicit surfaces from point clouds. In European Conference on Computer Vision (2020), Springer, pp. 108--124

    2020

  3. [11]

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

    Fan Z., Wang K., Wen K., Zhu Z., Xu D., Wang Z., et al. : Lightgaussian: Unbounded 3d gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ fps. Advances in neural information processing systems 37 (2024), 140138--140158

    2024

  4. [12]

    S., Tao W

    Fu Q., Xu Q., Ong Y. S., Tao W. : Geo-neus: Geometry-consistent neural implicit surfaces learning for multi-view reconstruction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 3403--3416

    2022

  5. [13]

    : Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering

    Gu \'e don A., Lepetit V. : Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024), pp. 5354--5363

    2024

  6. [14]

    Goesele M., Snavely N., Curless B., Hoppe H., Seitz S. M. : Multi-view stereo for community photo collections. In 2007 IEEE 11th international conference on computer vision (2007), IEEE, pp. 1--8

    2007

  7. [15]

    : Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering

    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 (2018), 1--15

    2018

  8. [16]

    P., Mildenhall B., Barron J

    Hedman P., Srinivasan P. P., Mildenhall B., Barron J. T., Debevec P. : Baking neural radiance fields for real-time view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (2021), pp. 5875--5884

    2021

  9. [17]

    : 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

    Huang B., Yu Z., Chen A., Geiger A., Gao S. : 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 conference papers (2024), pp. 1--11

    2024

  10. [18]

    : Large scale multi-view stereopsis evaluation

    Jensen R., Dahl A., Vogiatzis G., Tola E., Aan s H. : Large scale multi-view stereopsis evaluation. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2014), IEEE, pp. 406--413

    2014

  11. [19]

    : Screened poisson surface reconstruction

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

    2013

  12. [20]

    : 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Kerbl B., Kopanas G., Leimk \"u hler T., Drettakis G. : 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph. 42, 4 (2023), 139--1

    2023

  13. [21]

    : Neural point catacaustics for novel-view synthesis of reflections

    Kopanas G., Leimk \"u hler T., Rainer G., Jambon C., Drettakis G. : Neural point catacaustics for novel-view synthesis of reflections. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41, 6 (2022), 1--15

    2022

  14. [22]

    : Point-based neural rendering with per-view optimization

    Kopanas G., Philip J., Leimk \"u hler T., Drettakis G. : Point-based neural rendering with per-view optimization. In Computer Graphics Forum (2021), vol. 40, Wiley Online Library, pp. 29--43

    2021

  15. [23]

    : Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction

    Knapitsch A., Park J., Zhou Q.-Y., Koltun V. : Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 36, 4 (2017), 1--13

    2017

  16. [24]

    Kheradmand S., Rebain D., Sharma G., Sun W., Tseng Y.-C., Isack H., Kar A., Tagliasacchi A., Yi K. M. : 3d gaussian splatting as markov chain monte carlo. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 80965--80986

    2024

  17. [25]

    E., Cline H

    Lorensen W. E., Cline H. E. : Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. In Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field. 1998, pp. 347--353

    1998

  18. [26]

    : Mpgs: Multi-plane gaussian splatting for compact scenes rendering

    Li D., Huang S.-S., Huang H. : Mpgs: Multi-plane gaussian splatting for compact scenes rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    H., Unberath M., Liu M.-Y., Lin C.-H

    Li Z., M \"u ller 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 (2023), pp. 8456--8465

    2023

  20. [28]

    : Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering

    Lu T., Yu M., Xu L., Xiangli Y., Wang L., Lin D., Dai B. : Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024), pp. 20654--20664

    2024

  21. [29]

    : Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding

    M \"u ller T., Evans A., Schied C., Keller A. : Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) 41, 4 (2022), 1--15

    2022

  22. [30]

    : Neural-pull: Learning signed distance functions from point clouds by learning to pull space onto surfaces

    Ma B., Han Z., Liu Y.-S., Zwicker M. : Neural-pull: Learning signed distance functions from point clouds by learning to pull space onto surfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13495 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    : Surface reconstruction from point clouds by learning predictive context priors

    Ma B., Liu Y.-S., Zwicker M., Han Z. : Surface reconstruction from point clouds by learning predictive context priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2022), pp. 6326--6337

    2022

  24. [32]

    P., Tancik M., Barron J

    Mildenhall B., Srinivasan P. P., Tancik M., Barron J. T., Ramamoorthi R., Ng R. : Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM 65, 1 (2021), 99--106

    2021

  25. [33]

    : Compressed 3d gaussian splatting for accelerated novel view synthesis

    Niedermayr S., Stumpfegger J., Westermann R. : Compressed 3d gaussian splatting for accelerated novel view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024), pp. 10349--10358

    2024

  26. [34]

    : Unisurf: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction

    Oechsle M., Peng S., Geiger A. : Unisurf: Unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields for multi-view reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (2021), pp. 5589--5599

    2021

  27. [35]

    : Binary opacity grids: Capturing fine geometric detail for mesh-based view synthesis

    Reiser C., Garbin S., Srinivasan P., Verbin D., Szeliski R., Mildenhall B., Barron J., Hedman P., Geiger A. : Binary opacity grids: Capturing fine geometric detail for mesh-based view synthesis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43, 4 (2024), 1--14

    2024

  28. [36]

    : Free view synthesis

    Riegler G., Koltun V. : Free view synthesis. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIX 16 (2020), Springer, pp. 623--640

    2020

  29. [37]

    : Stable view synthesis

    Riegler G., Koltun V. : Stable view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2021), pp. 12216--12225

    2021

  30. [38]

    : Merf: Memory-efficient radiance fields for real-time view synthesis in unbounded scenes

    Reiser C., Szeliski R., Verbin D., Srinivasan P., Mildenhall B., Geiger A., Barron J., Hedman P. : Merf: Memory-efficient radiance fields for real-time view synthesis in unbounded scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42, 4 (2023), 1--12

    2023

  31. [39]

    M., Curless B., Diebel J., Scharstein D., Szeliski R

    Seitz S. M., Curless B., Diebel J., Scharstein D., Szeliski R. : A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. In 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR'06) (2006), vol. 1, IEEE, pp. 519--528

    2006

  32. [40]

    L., Frahm J.-M

    Schonberger J. L., Frahm J.-M. : Structure-from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2016), pp. 4104--4113

    2016

  33. [41]

    : Solidgs: Consolidating gaussian surfel splatting for sparse-view surface reconstruction

    Shen Z., Liu Y., Chen Z., Li Z., Wang J., Liang Y., Yu Z., Zhang J., Xu Y., Schaefer S., et al. : Solidgs: Consolidating gaussian surfel splatting for sparse-view surface reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15400 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M., Szeliski R

    Snavely N., Seitz S. M., Szeliski R. : Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d. In ACM siggraph 2006 papers. 2006, pp. 835--846

    2006

  35. [43]

    L., Zheng E., Pollefeys M., Frahm J.-M

    Sch\" o nberger J. L., Zheng E., Pollefeys M., Frahm J.-M. : Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    : Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view reconstruction

    Wang Y., Han Q., Habermann M., Daniilidis K., Theobalt C., Liu L. : Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (2023), pp. 3295--3306

    2023

  37. [45]

    : Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction

    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)

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    : Sparse2dgs: Geometry-prioritized gaussian splatting for surface reconstruction from sparse views

    Wu J., Li R., Zhu Y., Guo R., Sun J., Zhang Y. : Sparse2dgs: Geometry-prioritized gaussian splatting for surface reconstruction from sparse views. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20378 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    : Learning 3d geometry and feature consistent gaussian splatting for object removal

    Wang Y., Wu Q., Zhang G., Xu D. : Learning 3d geometry and feature consistent gaussian splatting for object removal. In European Conference on Computer Vision (2024), Springer, pp. 1--17

    2024

  40. [48]

    : Texture-gs: Disentangling the geometry and texture for 3d gaussian splatting editing

    Xu T.-X., Hu W., Lai Y.-K., Shan Y., Zhang S.-H. : Texture-gs: Disentangling the geometry and texture for 3d gaussian splatting editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision (2024), Springer, pp. 37--53

    2024

  41. [49]

    : Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting

    Yu Z., Chen A., Huang B., Sattler T., Geiger A. : Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2024), pp. 19447--19456

    2024

  42. [50]

    : Volume rendering of neural implicit surfaces

    Yariv L., Gu J., Kasten Y., Lipman Y. : Volume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 4805--4815

    2021

  43. [51]

    P., Szeliski R., Barron J

    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 (2023), pp. 1--9

    2023

  44. [52]

    : Gsdf: 3dgs meets sdf for improved neural rendering and reconstruction

    Yu M., Lu T., Xu L., Jiang L., Xiangli Y., Dai B. : Gsdf: 3dgs meets sdf for improved neural rendering and reconstruction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 129507--129530

    2024

  45. [53]

    : Gaussian opacity fields: Efficient adaptive surface reconstruction in unbounded scenes

    Yu Z., Sattler T., Geiger A. : Gaussian opacity fields: Efficient adaptive surface reconstruction in unbounded scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43, 6 (2024), 1--13

    2024

  46. [54]

    : Open3D : A modern library for 3D data processing

    Zhou Q.-Y., Park J., Koltun V. : Open3D : A modern library for 3D data processing. arXiv:1801.09847 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.