Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Impact of Solar Particle Events on Space Radiation Shielding: OLTARIS Simulation and Quantum Optimization of Material Selection using QAOA and VQE Algorithms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The abstract claims a quantum optimizer reproduces OLTARIS shielding rankings, but the supplied full text is an unrelated manuscript, so the result is unverified.

desk verdict The abstract promises an OLTARIS/QUBO/QAOA shielding paper, but the full text is an unrelated 3D Gaussian Splatting paper; there is nothing here to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01234 v1 pith:AVEXY627 submitted 2025-08-02 physics.med-ph physics.space-ph

Kavita Lalwani , Sreedevi V. V. , Munish Gakhar , Diya Agrawal This is my paper
classification physics.med-phphysics.space-ph
keywords spaceradiationshieldingsolarparticleeventsgalacticcosmicraysOLTARISQUBOQAOAVQEmaterialselection
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 intends to show that spacecraft shielding can be chosen by solving a binary optimization problem with quantum algorithms. The abstract reports OLTARIS dose calculations for five candidate materials under galactic cosmic rays and the October 1989 solar particle event, and says beryllium borohydride gives the lowest SPE dose while lithium hydride gives the lowest GCR dose. It further claims that QAOA and VQE, applied to a QUBO/Ising encoding of the material-selection problem, agree with the OLTARIS rankings in both environments. A careful reader who opens the full text finds that the body is a different manuscript, on 3D Gaussian Splatting noise separation, with no OLTARIS data and no quantum optimization; the page therefore reports the abstract's claim as unverified by the supplied body.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QUBO-to-Ising mapping: a binary optimization whose energy landscape encodes inclusion of shielding materials, with OLTARIS-computed dose values converted into Hamiltonian coefficients. QAOA and VQE then search for the low-energy configuration that minimizes dose. The abstract gives no further identity or derivation, and the supplied full text does not contain this mapping.

What would settle it

Open the manuscript at the section that should present the quantum optimization and look for dose tables for the five named materials, the QUBO/Ising mapping, and QAOA/VQE output curves; if any of these are missing, the claimed agreement is not demonstrated. In the supplied full text, the tables report PSNR and SSIM for 3D scene reconstruction, not radiation doses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the abstract's own terms, the paper claims that material selection for space-radiation shielding can be mapped onto a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization problem, translated into an Ising Hamiltonian, and minimized with QAOA and VQE such that the chosen shields match the dose rankings from the OLTARIS transport tool. The claimed material rankings are: beryllium borohydride best for the solar particle event, lithium hydride lowest for galactic cosmic rays, with SPE performance linked to hydrogen content. The paper also claims that higher solar modulation reduces GCR intensity and dose. None of this content appears in the supplied body, so the claim is recorded but not established.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result depends on the manuscript body actually containing the OLTARIS simulations and the QUBO/Ising derivation; the body supplied here is an unrelated paper, so that assumption is currently unmet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the agreement is real, quantum optimizers could rank shielding materials directly from OLTARIS dose data, removing the need for manual screening of candidate lists.
  • Since SPE performance is tied to hydrogen content, lightweight hydrogen-rich compounds would become the default starting point for solar-event shielding design.
  • Solar-modulation dependence means mission timing matters: at higher modulation a thinner, hydrogenous shield may suffice for galactic cosmic rays, so shielding should be specified per mission phase.
  • The same QUBO formulation could extend to layered or composite shields, where the combinatorial search space is too large for exhaustive evaluation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An independent test would solve the stated QUBO exactly by enumeration for the five materials and compare against the QAOA/VQE solutions; that would isolate whether the optimizers are genuinely finding the minimum or just echoing the dose data.
  • If the OLTARIS–quantum agreement survives that test, it would suggest the dose landscape is dominated by a few material features, most likely hydrogen fraction and density, making simple classical heuristics competitive for larger material libraries.
  • The supplied body cannot support any of these implications: it contains no OLTARIS output, no Ising Hamiltonian, and no quantum-classical results, so the abstract's claims should be treated as preliminary until a matching manuscript is provided.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The abstract describes an OLTARIS-based study of shielding materials for space radiation, claiming that beryllium borohydride performs best in SPE, lithium hydride gives the lowest dose in GCR, and that results show agreement between OLTARIS and quantum optimization using QAOA and VQE. The supplied full text, however, is arXiv:2508.01239, a paper titled "OCSplats" on 3D Gaussian Splatting with different authors and no OLTARIS simulations, no material dose tables, no Ising/QUBO formulation, no QAOA or VQE execution, and no comparison statistics. The manuscript therefore contains no derivational or experimental support for any of the claims in the abstract.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposed workflow could be practically useful for automated shielding-material selection in space applications. However, because none of the claimed components appear in the submitted full text, the manuscript cannot be evaluated for correctness or novelty. The 3DGS body is self-contained but entirely unrelated to the advertised topic. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions relevant to the physics/quantum claims are present.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Full Text] The abstract's central claim of "agreement between OLTARIS and quantum optimization" is unsupported: the submitted full text is a different paper (OCSplats, arXiv:2508.01239) with different authors and no OLTARIS, shielding-material, Ising/QUBO, QAOA, or VQE content. Every equation in the body, including Eq. (1)-(24), belongs to 3D Gaussian Splatting. This is not a presentation issue; the evidentiary basis for the headline result is absent.
  2. [Abstract] The specific quantitative assertions—beryllium borohydride best in SPE, lithium hydride lowest in GCR, and agreement between OLTARIS and quantum optimization—are not accompanied by any dose tables, flux distributions, material rankings, or statistical comparison in the manuscript. No supplementary materials are provided, so the abstract remains a claim without a derivation or data.
  3. [Full Text, Section 4] Even considered on its own terms, the body's experiments concern PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on RobustNeRF and On-the-go datasets (Tables 1-3) and are irrelevant to the physics/quantum topic. No section addresses solar particle events, galactic cosmic rays, or shielding optimization, so the promised agreement between OLTARIS and quantum methods cannot be checked.
  4. [Full Text, Section 3.4] The dynamic-threshold classifier defined in Eq. (20)-(23) cannot serve as a substitute for the claimed QAOA/VQE comparison. The manuscript never defines a QUBO objective or an Ising Hamiltonian for material selection, so there is no basis for the claimed agreement between classical radiation-transport results and quantum optimization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Full Text, Section 1] The passage "这⾥要不分开显示吧，排版好拍⼀点" after the author line appears to be an untranslated editorial note; it should be removed or translated.
  2. [Full Text, Section 4.1] The text attributes reference [31] to "Goli et al.'s work," but the bibliography entry for [31] is Sabour et al., SpotLessSplats; the citation should be corrected.
  3. [Full Text, Sections 2.2 and 4.2] The method name is spelled inconsistently as "SplotLessSplats" and "SpotLessSplats"; please unify the spelling.
  4. [Full Text, Section 5] The conclusion refers to "OCSplasts" but the method is named "OCSplats" throughout the rest of the paper; this typo should be fixed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

OLTARIS–quantum agreement is a consistency check: the QUBO is built from the same OLTARIS dose data used for comparison, and the supplied body is a different paper.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract, final two sentences (full text supplied is arXiv:2508.01239 OCSplats, not the described study)]
    "The material selection problem is modeled as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization and solved using the Variational Quantum Eigensolver and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. Mapping OLTARIS data to the Ising model and applying these quantum classical methods helped identify shielding setups that minimize radiation dose. Results show agreement between OLTARIS and quantum optimization for both environments."

    The QUBO objective is constructed by 'mapping OLTARIS data to the Ising model'; in a binary-optimization formulation of material selection, the cost coefficients encode the dose values from the OLTARIS runs. The optimizer's selected 'shielding setups that minimize radiation dose' are therefore minimizers of a function built from the same OLTARIS dose outputs that are then used as the comparison target. Ranking those minimizers against the OLTARIS rankings is a consistency check on the encoding, not an independent prediction of shielding performance. The final sentence presents this self-consistency as evidence that the quantum-classical methods reproduce OLTARIS ('Results show agreement'), which is the load-bearing validation claim of the abstract.

full rationale

The abstract's methodological novelty is the quantum optimization of material selection, and its validation is the claimed 'agreement between OLTARIS and quantum optimization.' Because the Ising/QUBO objective is explicitly built by mapping OLTARIS data into the model, the optimizer's dose-minimizing configurations are derived from the same data that serve as the reference for comparison. The agreement is therefore a self-consistency check, not an independent result, which is a partial circularity in the central claim. Separately, the supplied manuscript body is arXiv:2508.01239 (OCSplats), a 3D Gaussian Splatting paper with different authors and no OLTARIS, shielding, QAOA, or VQE content; this is a severe completeness and integrity problem, but absence of the derivation is not itself circularity. The material-performance statements (e.g., beryllium borohydride best in SPE, lithium hydride lowest in GCR) are OLTARIS simulation outputs and are not circular on their own. Score 6 reflects that the paper's headline validation step reduces by construction, while other reported results retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The abstract introduces no new physical entities. The mismatched body introduces 'Observation Completeness' as a new metric, but that belongs to the unrelated 3DGS paper and is not part of the stated claim.

free parameters (6)
  • λ_oc (observation completeness momentum) = 0.98
    Hyperparameter in Eq. (6) of the full text's OCSplats method; belongs to the mismatched body text, not the abstract's claim.
  • λ_2 (hybrid assessment weight) = 0.5
    Weight in Eq. (13) of the OCSplats body text.
  • λ_3 (OCR strength) = 3.0
    Hyperparameter in Eq. (15) of the OCSplats body text.
  • th (observation threshold) = 0.3
    Threshold in Eq. (15) of the OCSplats body text.
  • OCP pruning thresholds = 0.03 and 3 observations
    Thresholds in Sec. 3.5 of the OCSplats body text.
  • QUBO/Ising weights for shielding
    The abstract claims a mapping of OLTARIS data to an Ising model, but no weights, penalty coefficients, or encoding are given in the manuscript.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption OLTARIS accurately predicts radiation dose for GCR and SPE environments
    The abstract's material ranking depends entirely on the simulator's fidelity, yet no validation or version is cited.
  • ad hoc to paper The QUBO encoding faithfully represents the shielding optimization objective
    The abstract asserts the mapping to an Ising model without showing how dose data become QUBO coefficients.
  • domain assumption QAOA/VQE find solutions that correspond to true optimal or near-optimal shielding configurations
    The abstract reports agreement with OLTARIS, which presumes the quantum optimizers actually solve the encoded problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Solar Particle Events on Space Radiation Shielding: OLTARIS Simulation and Quantum Optimization of Material Selection using QAOA and VQE Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVEXY627

@misc{pith2026250801234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Solar Particle Events on Space Radiation Shielding: OLTARIS Simulation and Quantum Optimization of Material Selection using QAOA and VQE Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVEXY627}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01234}
}
read the original abstract

Space radiation poses a significant challenge for long duration human space missions, with sources including Galactic Cosmic Rays, Solar Particle Events, and trapped particles in the Van Allen belts. These high-energy radiations cause severe biological effects on astronauts and degrade spacecraft systems, making effective shielding critical. Traditionally, passive shielding materials like aluminum have been used, but their limitations, particularly in generating secondary radiation, necessitate better alternatives. In this study, the performance of shielding materials such as lithium hydride, polyethylene, lithium borohydride, beryllium borohydride, and ammonia borane are evaluated in GCR and SPE environments using OLTARIS, a NASA developed tool. The October 1989 SPE is used to study particle flux and dose distributions. Shielding effectiveness varies by environment. Beryllium borohydride performs best in SPE, while lithium hydride gives the lowest dose in GCR. In SPE, performance is linked to hydrogen content. Effect of Solar modulation on GCR dose is also studied. Higher modulation lowers GCR intensity and dose. The complex nature of high energy space radiation and material combinations creates computational challenges. To address this, the material selection problem is modeled as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization and solved using the Variational Quantum Eigensolver and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. Mapping OLTARIS data to the Ising model and applying these quantum classical methods helped identify shielding setups that minimize radiation dose. Results show agreement between OLTARIS and quantum optimization for both environments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shape from shading for non-lambertian surfaces

    Sanjay Bakshi and Yee-Hong Yang. Shape from shading for non-lambertian surfaces. In Proceedings of 1st Inter- national Conference on Image Processing , pages 130–134. IEEE, 1994. 1

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Quantifying Sources of Uncertainty in Deep Learning-Based Image Reconstruction

    Riccardo Barbano, ˇZeljko Kereta, Chen Zhang, Andreas Hauptmann, Simon Arridge, and Bangti Jin. Quantifying sources of uncertainty in deep learning-based image recon- struction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.08413, 2020. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 5470– 5479, 2022. 2, 7, 8

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Nerf-hugs: Improved neural radiance fields in non-static scenes using heuristics-guided segmentation

    Jiahao Chen, Yipeng Qin, Lingjie Liu, Jiangbo Lu, and Guanbin Li. Nerf-hugs: Improved neural radiance fields in non-static scenes using heuristics-guided segmentation. In CVPR, pages 19436–19446, 2024. 1, 7

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    An improved sobel edge detection

    Wenshuo Gao, Xiaoguang Zhang, Lei Yang, and Huizhong Liu. An improved sobel edge detection. In 2010 3rd In- ternational conference on computer science and information technology, pages 67–71. IEEE, 2010. 5

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quantifica- tion for neural radiance fields

    Lily Goli, Cody Reading, Silvia Sell ´an, Alec Jacobson, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quantifica- tion for neural radiance fields. In CVPR, pages 20061– 20070, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    GGS: Generalizable Gaussian Splatting for Lane Switching in Autonomous Driving

    Huasong Han, Kaixuan Zhou, Xiaoxiao Long, Yusen Wang, and Chunxia Xiao. Ggs: Generalizable gaussian splatting for lane switching in autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02382, 2024. 1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Triangulation

    Richard I Hartley and Peter Sturm. Triangulation. Computer vision and image understanding, 68(2):146–157, 1997. 2

    work page 1997

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Splatad: Real-time li- dar and camera rendering with 3d gaussian splatting for au- tonomous driving

    Georg Hess, Carl Lindstr ¨om, Maryam Fatemi, Christoffer Petersson, and Lennart Svensson. Splatad: Real-time li- dar and camera rendering with 3d gaussian splatting for au- tonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16816, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods

    Eyke H ¨ullermeier and Willem Waegeman. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods. Machine learning, 110(3):457– 506, 2021. 2

    2021

  3. [11]

    Nu- merical approach for quantification of epistemic uncer- tainty

    John Jakeman, Michael Eldred, and Dongbin Xiu. Nu- merical approach for quantification of epistemic uncer- tainty. Journal of Computational Physics , 229(12):4648– 4663, 2010. 2

    2010

  4. [12]

    What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? NIPS, 30,

    Alex Kendall and Yarin Gal. What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? NIPS, 30,

  5. [13]

    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 Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1,

  6. [14]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In ICCV, pages 4015–4026, 2023. 5

    2023

  7. [15]

    Wildgaussians: 3d gaussian splatting in the wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08447, 2024

    Jonas Kulhanek, Songyou Peng, Zuzana Kukelova, Marc Pollefeys, and Torsten Sattler. Wildgaussians: 3d gaussian splatting in the wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08447, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 8

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Vdg: vision-only dynamic gaussian for driving simulation

    Hao Li, Jingfeng Li, Dingwen Zhang, Chenming Wu, Jieqi Shi, Chen Zhao, Haocheng Feng, Errui Ding, Jingdong Wang, and Junwei Han. Vdg: vision-only dynamic gaussian for driving simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18198 ,

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Scale-flow: Estimat- ing 3d motion from video

    Han Ling, Quansen Sun, Zhenwen Ren, Yazhou Liu, Hongyuan Wang, and Zichen Wang. Scale-flow: Estimat- ing 3d motion from video. In ACMMM, pages 6530–6538,

  10. [18]

    Learning optical expansion from scale matching

    Han Ling, Yinghui Sun, Quansen Sun, and Zhenwen Ren. Learning optical expansion from scale matching. In CVPR, pages 5445–5454, 2023. 1

    2023

  11. [19]

    Adfactory: An effective framework for generalizing optical flow with nerf

    Han Ling, Quansen Sun, Yinghui Sun, Xian Xu, and Xin- feng Li. Adfactory: An effective framework for generalizing optical flow with nerf. In CVPR, pages 20591–20600, 2024. 1

    2024

  12. [20]

    Self-assessed generation: Trustworthy label genera- tion for optical flow and stereo matching in real-world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10453, 2024

    Han Ling, Yinghui Sun, Quansen Sun, Ivor Tsang, and Yuhui Zheng. Self-assessed generation: Trustworthy label genera- tion for optical flow and stereo matching in real-world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10453, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A simple baseline for bayesian uncertainty in deep learning

    Wesley J Maddox, Pavel Izmailov, Timur Garipov, Dmitry P Vetrov, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. A simple baseline for bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. NIPS, 32, 2019. 2

    2019

  14. [22]

    Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for un- constrained photo collections

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Jonathan T Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duck- worth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for un- constrained photo collections. In CVPR, pages 7210–7219,

  15. [23]

    Bayesian uncertainty estimation of learned variational mri reconstruc- tion

    Dominik Narnhofer, Alexander Effland, Erich Kobler, Ker- stin Hammernik, Florian Knoll, and Thomas Pock. Bayesian uncertainty estimation of learned variational mri reconstruc- tion. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 41(2):279–291,

  16. [24]

    Epistemic uncertainty sampling

    Vu-Linh Nguyen, S ´ebastien Destercke, and Eyke H¨ullermeier. Epistemic uncertainty sampling. In Dis- covery Science: 22nd International Conference, DS 2019, Split, Croatia, October 28–30, 2019, Proceedings 22, pages 72–86. Springer, 2019. 2

    2019

  17. [25]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms

    Nobuyuki Otsu et al. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. Automatica, 11(285-296):23–27,

  19. [27]

    Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library.NIPS, 32, 2019

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library.NIPS, 32, 2019. 5

    2019

  20. [28]

    3dgs-avatar: Animatable avatars via deformable 3d gaussian splatting

    Zhiyin Qian, Shaofei Wang, Marko Mihajlovic, Andreas Geiger, and Siyu Tang. 3dgs-avatar: Animatable avatars via deformable 3d gaussian splatting. In CVPR, pages 5020– 5030, 2024. 1

    2024

  21. [29]

    Nerf on-the-go: Exploiting uncertainty for distractor-free nerfs in the wild

    Weining Ren, Zihan Zhu, Boyang Sun, Jiaqi Chen, Marc Pollefeys, and Songyou Peng. Nerf on-the-go: Exploiting uncertainty for distractor-free nerfs in the wild. In CVPR, pages 8931–8940, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8

    2024

  22. [30]

    Robustnerf: Ignor- ing distractors with robust losses

    Sara Sabour, Suhani V ora, Daniel Duckworth, Ivan Krasin, David J Fleet, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Robustnerf: Ignor- ing distractors with robust losses. In CVPR, pages 20626– 20636, 2023. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  23. [31]

    Spotlesssplats: Ignor- ing distractors in 3d gaussian splatting

    Sara Sabour, Lily Goli, George Kopanas, Mark Matthews, Dmitry Lagun, Leonidas Guibas, Alec Jacobson, David J Fleet, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Spotlesssplats: Ignor- ing distractors in 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20055, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Structure-from-motion revisited

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In CVPR, 2016. 1

    2016

  25. [33]

    Pixelwise view selection for un- structured multi-view stereo

    Johannes Lutz Sch ¨onberger, Enliang Zheng, Marc Pollefeys, and Jan-Michael Frahm. Pixelwise view selection for un- structured multi-view stereo. In ECCV, 2016. 1

    2016

  26. [34]

    Spherical harmonics

    Robert T Seeley. Spherical harmonics. The American Math- ematical Monthly, 73(4P2):115–121, 1966. 3

    1966

  27. [35]

    Estimating 3d uncertainty field: Quanti- fying uncertainty for neural radiance fields

    Jianxiong Shen, Ruijie Ren, Adria Ruiz, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. Estimating 3d uncertainty field: Quanti- fying uncertainty for neural radiance fields. In ICRA, pages 2375–2381. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  28. [36]

    Epis- temic uncertainty quantification tutorial

    Laura P Swiler, Thomas L Paez, and Randall L Mayes. Epis- temic uncertainty quantification tutorial. In Proceedings of the 27th International Modal Analysis Conference, 2009. 2

    2009

  29. [37]

    The point of triangulation

    Veronica A Thurmond. The point of triangulation. Journal of nursing scholarship, 33(3):253–258, 2001. 2

    2001

  30. [38]

    Nerf-supervised deep stereo

    Fabio Tosi, Alessio Tonioni, Daniele De Gregorio, and Mat- teo Poggi. Nerf-supervised deep stereo. In CVPR, pages 855–866, 2023. 1

    2023

  31. [39]

    We-gs: An in-the-wild efficient 3d gaussian representation for unconstrained photo collections

    Yuze Wang, Junyi Wang, and Yue Qi. We-gs: An in-the-wild efficient 3d gaussian representation for unconstrained photo collections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02407, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. TIP, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 3

    2004

  33. [41]

    Gsdf: 3dgs meets sdf for improved rendering and reconstruction

    Mulin Yu, Tao Lu, Linning Xu, Lihan Jiang, Yuanbo Xiangli, and Bo Dai. Gsdf: 3dgs meets sdf for improved rendering and reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16964, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Drivinggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic au- tonomous driving scenes

    Xiaoyu Zhou, Zhiwei Lin, Xiaojun Shan, Yongtao Wang, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Drivinggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic au- tonomous driving scenes. In CVPR, pages 21634–21643,

  35. [2024]

    Qualitative Results in Indoor and Outdoor Scenes

    1 Figure 12. Qualitative Results in Indoor and Outdoor Scenes. OCSplats detect areas with learning difficulties based on observation completeness and use OCR to correct noise assessments, achieving accurate noise segmentation in scenes of different complexities. we will attemp...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.