DDGS-CT: Direction-Disentangled Gaussian Splatting for Realistic Volume Rendering

Read original: arXiv:2406.02518 - Published 6/5/2024 by Zhongpai Gao, Benjamin Planche, Meng Zheng, Xiao Chen, Terrence Chen, Ziyan Wu

📈

Overview

This paper provides a response checklist per the NeurIPS submission guideline request.
It addresses key aspects of the paper, including the accuracy of the claims, limitations, ethical considerations, reproducibility, and broader impact.
The response aims to thoroughly address the NeurIPS guidelines and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the research.

Plain English Explanation

The authors of this paper have provided a detailed response to the NeurIPS submission guidelines. They have gone through each of the key requirements and assessed how well their paper meets them.

Firstly, the authors confirm that the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope. This suggests the paper stays true to its stated goals and objectives.

Next, the authors acknowledge the limitations of their work. They likely discuss factors that could impact the generalizability or real-world applicability of their findings. Identifying these limitations is important for providing a balanced and transparent assessment of the research.

The authors also address ethical considerations related to the work. This could involve discussing potential risks, harms, or biases that may arise from the use of the techniques or technologies described in the paper. Considering the ethical implications of research is crucial.

Additionally, the authors comment on the reproducibility of their experiments and results. This speaks to the rigor and reliability of the scientific methods used, which is vital for building confidence in the research.

Finally, the authors reflect on the broader impact of their work. They likely discuss how the techniques or insights presented could influence the field more widely and what potential benefits or concerns may arise. This big-picture perspective is important for situating the research within the larger context.

Overall, this response checklist demonstrates the authors' commitment to thoroughly addressing the NeurIPS guidelines and providing a comprehensive evaluation of their work. By transparently discussing the key aspects of their research, they aim to ensure it meets the high standards expected for publication.

Technical Explanation

The authors of this paper have provided a detailed response to the NeurIPS submission guidelines, addressing the following key elements:

Claims: The authors confirm that the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope.
Limitations: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their work, likely discussing factors that could impact the generalizability or real-world applicability of their findings.
Ethical Considerations: The authors address ethical considerations related to the work, discussing potential risks, harms, or biases that may arise from the use of the techniques or technologies described in the paper.
Reproducibility: The authors comment on the reproducibility of their experiments and results, speaking to the rigor and reliability of the scientific methods used.
Broader Impact: The authors reflect on the broader impact of their work, discussing how the techniques or insights presented could influence the field more widely and what potential benefits or concerns may arise.

By thoroughly addressing these guidelines, the authors demonstrate their commitment to providing a comprehensive evaluation of their research and ensuring it meets the high standards expected for publication in a prestigious venue like NeurIPS.

Critical Analysis

The authors of this paper have taken a thorough and transparent approach in addressing the NeurIPS submission guidelines. They have clearly and directly responded to each of the key requirements, providing a balanced assessment of their work.

One potential area for further discussion is the limitations of the research. While the authors have acknowledged these limitations, it would be valuable to explore them in greater depth. For example, they could delve into the specific factors that constrain the generalizability or real-world applicability of their findings, and how future work might address these limitations.

Additionally, the authors' discussion of ethical considerations is commendable, but it would be interesting to see them delve into more specific use cases or potential scenarios where ethical concerns may arise. By exploring these issues in greater detail, they could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the ethical implications of their work.

Overall, this response checklist demonstrates the authors' commitment to rigorous self-evaluation and transparency. By addressing the NeurIPS guidelines in a thoughtful and objective manner, they have strengthened the credibility of their research and laid the foundation for meaningful discourse and further advancements in the field.

Conclusion

The authors of this paper have provided a comprehensive response to the NeurIPS submission guidelines, addressing key aspects of their research in a thorough and transparent manner. They have confirmed the accuracy of their claims, acknowledged the limitations of their work, considered ethical implications, discussed the reproducibility of their experiments, and reflected on the broader impact of their findings.

By addressing these guidelines so thoroughly, the authors have demonstrated their commitment to high-quality research and their willingness to engage in critical self-evaluation. This response checklist serves as a model for how researchers can approach the publication process, prioritizing transparency, rigor, and a balanced assessment of their work.

The insights and approaches presented in this paper have the potential to contribute to the ongoing development and refinement of research practices in the field. As the authors' work continues to be explored and built upon, this response checklist may serve as a valuable resource for other researchers seeking to align their work with the expectations and standards of prestigious venues like NeurIPS.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

📈

DDGS-CT: Direction-Disentangled Gaussian Splatting for Realistic Volume Rendering

Zhongpai Gao, Benjamin Planche, Meng Zheng, Xiao Chen, Terrence Chen, Ziyan Wu

Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) are simulated 2D X-ray images generated from 3D CT volumes, widely used in preoperative settings but limited in intraoperative applications due to computational bottlenecks, especially for accurate but heavy physics-based Monte Carlo methods. While analytical DRR renderers offer greater efficiency, they overlook anisotropic X-ray image formation phenomena, such as Compton scattering. We present a novel approach that marries realistic physics-inspired X-ray simulation with efficient, differentiable DRR generation using 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS). Our direction-disentangled 3DGS (DDGS) method separates the radiosity contribution into isotropic and direction-dependent components, approximating complex anisotropic interactions without intricate runtime simulations. Additionally, we adapt the 3DGS initialization to account for tomography data properties, enhancing accuracy and efficiency. Our method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in image accuracy. Furthermore, our DDGS shows promise for intraoperative applications and inverse problems such as pose registration, delivering superior registration accuracy and runtime performance compared to analytical DRR methods.

6/5/2024

R$^2$-Gaussian: Rectifying Radiative Gaussian Splatting for Tomographic Reconstruction

Ruyi Zha, Tao Jun Lin, Yuanhao Cai, Jiwen Cao, Yanhao Zhang, Hongdong Li

3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) has shown promising results in image rendering and surface reconstruction. However, its potential in volumetric reconstruction tasks, such as X-ray computed tomography, remains under-explored. This paper introduces R2-Gaussian, the first 3DGS-based framework for sparse-view tomographic reconstruction. By carefully deriving X-ray rasterization functions, we discover a previously unknown integration bias in the standard 3DGS formulation, which hampers accurate volume retrieval. To address this issue, we propose a novel rectification technique via refactoring the projection from 3D to 2D Gaussians. Our new method presents three key innovations: (1) introducing tailored Gaussian kernels, (2) extending rasterization to X-ray imaging, and (3) developing a CUDA-based differentiable voxelizer. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches by 0.93 dB in PSNR and 0.014 in SSIM. Crucially, it delivers high-quality results in 3 minutes, which is 12x faster than NeRF-based methods and on par with traditional algorithms. The superior performance and rapid convergence of our method highlight its practical value.

6/3/2024

2D Gaussian Splatting for Geometrically Accurate Radiance Fields

Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, Shenghua Gao

3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has recently revolutionized radiance field reconstruction, achieving high quality novel view synthesis and fast rendering speed without baking. However, 3DGS fails to accurately represent surfaces due to the multi-view inconsistent nature of 3D Gaussians. We present 2D Gaussian Splatting (2DGS), a novel approach to model and reconstruct geometrically accurate radiance fields from multi-view images. Our key idea is to collapse the 3D volume into a set of 2D oriented planar Gaussian disks. Unlike 3D Gaussians, 2D Gaussians provide view-consistent geometry while modeling surfaces intrinsically. To accurately recover thin surfaces and achieve stable optimization, we introduce a perspective-correct 2D splatting process utilizing ray-splat intersection and rasterization. Additionally, we incorporate depth distortion and normal consistency terms to further enhance the quality of the reconstructions. We demonstrate that our differentiable renderer allows for noise-free and detailed geometry reconstruction while maintaining competitive appearance quality, fast training speed, and real-time rendering.

6/11/2024

3D-HGS: 3D Half-Gaussian Splatting

Haolin Li, Jinyang Liu, Mario Sznaier, Octavia Camps

Photo-realistic 3D Reconstruction is a fundamental problem in 3D computer vision. This domain has seen considerable advancements owing to the advent of recent neural rendering techniques. These techniques predominantly aim to focus on learning volumetric representations of 3D scenes and refining these representations via loss functions derived from rendering. Among these, 3D Gaussian Splatting (3D-GS) has emerged as a significant method, surpassing Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs). 3D-GS uses parameterized 3D Gaussians for modeling both spatial locations and color information, combined with a tile-based fast rendering technique. Despite its superior rendering performance and speed, the use of 3D Gaussian kernels has inherent limitations in accurately representing discontinuous functions, notably at edges and corners for shape discontinuities, and across varying textures for color discontinuities. To address this problem, we propose to employ 3D Half-Gaussian (3D-HGS) kernels, which can be used as a plug-and-play kernel. Our experiments demonstrate their capability to improve the performance of current 3D-GS related methods and achieve state-of-the-art rendering performance on various datasets without compromising rendering speed.

6/17/2024