REVIEW 2 cited by
GVKF: Gaussian Voxel Kernel Functions for Highly Efficient Surface Reconstruction in Open Scenes
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In this paper we present a novel method for efficient and effective 3D surface reconstruction in open scenes. Existing Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) based works typically require extensive training and rendering time due to the adopted implicit representations. In contrast, 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) uses an explicit and discrete representation, hence the reconstructed surface is built by the huge number of Gaussian primitives, which leads to excessive memory consumption and rough surface details in sparse Gaussian areas. To address these issues, we propose Gaussian Voxel Kernel Functions (GVKF), which establish a continuous scene representation based on discrete 3DGS through kernel regression. The GVKF integrates fast 3DGS rasterization and highly effective scene implicit representations, achieving high-fidelity open scene surface reconstruction. Experiments on challenging scene datasets demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of our proposed GVKF, featuring with high reconstruction quality, real-time rendering speed, significant savings in storage and training memory consumption.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Wavelet-GS: 3D Gaussian Splatting with Wavelet Decomposition
Wavelet-GS splits a 3D point cloud into low- and high-frequency wavelet parts, trains each with its own strategy, plus a relight module, reporting gains over prior 3DGS variants on four datasets.
-
Grids Often Outperform Implicit Neural Representations at Compressing Dense Signals
Simple interpolated grids beat tested INRs at equal parameter count on dense 2D and 3D signals, while INRs retain an edge on sparse, lower-dimensional signals.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.