AniSDF: Fused-Granularity Neural Surfaces with Anisotropic Encoding for High-Fidelity 3D Reconstruction
Authors: Jingnan Gao
Zhuo Chen
Xiaokang Yang
Yichao Yan
Venue: ICLR 2025 Poster (2025)
Keywords: Surface Reconstruction
Neural Radiance Field
Primary area: applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities

Abstract: Neural radiance fields have recently revolutionized novel-view synthesis and achieved high-fidelity renderings. 
However, these methods sacrifice the geometry for the rendering quality, limiting their further applications including relighting and deformation. 
How to synthesize photo-realistic rendering while reconstructing accurate geometry remains an unsolved problem. In this work, we present AniSDF, a novel approach that learns fused-granularity neural surfaces with physics-based encoding for high-fidelity 3D reconstruction. Different from previous neural surfaces, our fused-granularity geometry structure balances the overall structures and fine geometric details, producing accurate geometry reconstruction. 
To disambiguate geometry from reflective appearance, we introduce blended radiance fields to model diffuse and specularity following the anisotropic spherical Gaussian encoding, a physics-based rendering pipeline. With these designs, AniSDF can reconstruct objects with complex structures and produce high-quality renderings. 
Furthermore, our method is a unified model that does not require complex hyperparameter tuning for specific objects. 
Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method boosts the quality of SDF-based methods by a great scale in both geometry reconstruction and novel-view synthesis.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
ANISDF: FUSED-GRANULARITY NEURAL SURFACES WITH ANISOTROPIC ENCODING FOR HIGH-FIDELITY 3D RECONSTRUCTION
Jingnan Gao Zhuo Chen Xiaokang Yang
Yichao Yan
MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, Al Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
https: htt///-lnnonlly github io
Complex object
Luminous object
High Fidelity 3D Reconstruction
Reflective object
Fuzzy object
Figure I: The left part demonstrates the ability of AniSDF to produce accurate geometry and high- quality rendering results. The right part presents its capability handle various scenes including complex object, luminous object, highly reflective object, and fuzzy object.
ABSTRACT
Neural radiance fields have recently revolutionized novel-view synthesis and achieved high-fidelity renderings. However, these methods sacrifice the geom- etry for the rendering quality, limiting their further applications including re- lighting and deformation. How to synthesize photo-realistic rendering while re- constructing accurate geometry remains unsolved problem. In this work, we present AniSDF, novel approach that learns fused- -rranulartty neural surfaces with physics- based encoding for high-fidelity 3D reconstruction. Different from previous neural surfaces, our fused-granun fused-granularity geometry structure balances the overall structures and fine geometric details, producing accurate geometry recon- struction. To disambiguate geometry from reflective appearance, introduce blended radiance fields to model diffuse and specularity following the anisotropic spherical Gaussian encoding, physics-based rendering pipeline. With these de- signs, AniSDF can reconstruct objects with complex structures and produce high- quality renderings. Furthermore, method is unified model that does not re- quire complex hyperparameter tuning for specific objects. Extensive experiments demonstrate that method boosts the quality of SDF-d methods by great scale in both geometry reconstruction and novel-view synthesis.
INTRODUCTION
Achieving high-quality novel view synthesis and accurate geometry reconstruction are essential long-term goals in the fields of computer graphics and vision. Recently, neural radiance fields (NeRF) Mildenhall et al. (2020) and 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) Ktrbletat (2023) have achieved photo-realistic rendering results. However, they fail to accurately represent surfaces due to insuffi- cient surface constraints. While these methods trade off geometry accuracy for high-quality render-
Corresponding author.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
ing, accurate geometries are essential downstream applications such as relighting, PBR synthe- sis, and deformation. To extract better surfaces while maintaining the appearance quality, several methods Tang et al. (2023b); Rakotosaona et al. (2023) utilize two-step framework to reconstruct surfaces. However, due to the inevitable loss during the two-step optimization, they fall short in reconstructing high-quality geometric details.
From the perspective of accurate geometry, neural SDF methods Wang et al. (2021a); Yariv et al. (2021); Fu al. (2022); Yariv et al. (2023); Ge et al. (2023); Li al. (2023); Wang et al. (2022); Rosu & Behnke (2023); Wang et al. (2023b) emerges to be a possible solution. These methods usually rely on a geometry network to capture the geometric information and an appearance net- work for rendering. However. appearance learning and geometry learning interact with each other. Specifically, the inability to represent certain appearances will affect the learning process of the corresponding geometry, while the failure to reconstruct accurate geometry in turn affects the opti- mization of the appearance network. Thus, reconstructing accurate geometry without compromising the rendering quality is crucial problem for SDF-based methods. To address this issue, some meth- ods Li et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2022; 2023c) adopt a coarse-to-fing fine training strategy, while other methods Ge et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2023b); Yariv et al. (2023) apply reparametrization techniques or use basic functions Fridovich- Keil et al. (2022); Yu et al. (2021a) to improve the appearance net- work. However, the trade-off between geometry and appearance remains a problem. The essential challenges for SDF-based methods are (1) modeling fine geometric details and (2) disambiguating geometry from complex appearances such as reflective surfaces.
To address these challenges, our motivations are twofold. First, a fine-detailed geometry highly increases the quality of rendering results. Second, the disambiguation of reflective appearance can significantly reduce the difficulty of learning accurate geometry. We then design our framework from two perspectives. To get detailed geometry, instead of using sequential coarse-to- training strategy, we design parallel structure to learn -esse-graaularity neural surface that makes the most of both low-resolution hash grids and high-resolution hash grids. To further disambiguate geometry from appearance, we design a blended radiance field to model the diffuse and specularity respectively. We also introduce Anisotropic Spherical Gaussians (ASG) to better model the specular components. By following the physical rendering pipeline, these two networks complement each other and help the model strike a balance between reflective and non-reflective surfaces. We further blend these two radiance fields using learned weight field, enabling the model to learn scenes including semi- transparent and luminous surfaces. The rendering quality is then improved by a great scale and surpasses both NeRF Mildenhall et al. (2020) and 3DGS Kerbl et al. (2023) and their recent variants.
Overall, claim the contributions of our paper:
1. We design a unified SDF-based architecture that the geometry network and the appearance network complement each other, producing high-fidelity 3D reconstructions.
2. We present fused-granularitg neural surface to balance the overall structures and fine details.
3. We introduce blended radiance fields with a physics- based rendering via Anisotropic Spher- ical Gaussian encoding, successfully disambiguating the reflective appearance.
4. Our method boosts the quality of bDs-b methods by a great scale in both geometry reconstruction and novel-view synthesis tasks.
RELATED WORKS
2.1 NOVEL VIEW SYNTHESIS
Neural implicit representations Mildenhall et al. (2020); Lombardi el. (2019); Loubet al. (2019); Luan et al. 1) Lyu et al. (2020); Niemeyer & Geiger (2021); Niemeyer et al. (2020); Pumarola et al. (2021); Yu et al. (2021b); Srinivasan et al. (2021); Barron et al. (2023); Laine et al. (2020); Munkberg et al. (2022) have gained popularity in novel view synthesis. Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) and its follow-up approaches Martin- et al. (2021); Mildenhall et al. (2020); Park et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2020); Wang et al. (2021b); Reiser et al. (2023); Fridovich-Kei et al. (2022); Hu et al. (2023); Chen al. (2022; 2023b); Zhang et al. (2023); Shu et al. (2023); Guo
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
et al. (2023) parameterize the radiance field via neural network and employ volumetric rendering techniques to reconstruct the 3D model from multi-view images. These representations interpret the specular reflection the inherent appearance of the surface, enabling the photo photo-realistic rendering results. However, mistaking reflection for the base appearance of the object may lead to the sacrifice of geometry accuracy and limit the downstream task, e-g., relighting. Besides implicit representa- tion, recent 3D Gaussian splatting Kerbl et al. (2023); Huang et al. (2024); Jiang et al. (2023); Lu al. (2024); Yu et al. (2024); Guédon & Lepetit (2024); Chen al. (2023a); Yang al. (2024); Lyu et al. (2024) involves iterative refinement of multiple Gaussians to reconstruct 3D objects from 2D images, allowing for the rendering of novel views in complex scenes through interpolation. does not directly reconstruct the geometry but learns color and density in volumetric point cloud. However, the inherently discrete representation of Gaussians also results in an inaccurate geometry, obstructing its wider applications. To improve the reconstructed geometry, surface-based meth- ods Wang et al. (2021a); Li ct al. (2023); Darmon et al. (2022); Occhsle ct al. 12 Vicini et al. (2022); Yariv et al. (2020); Wu ct al. (2023); Yu et al. (2022); Sun et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2023a; 2024); Azinovic et al. (2022); Kirschstein et al. (2023) introduce a Signed Distance Field (SDF) to the volumetric representation, significantly enhancing the fidelity of geometry. Despite a more accurate surface representation, the misinterpretation of reflectance still exists due to the capacity of appearance network, affecting the learning of geometry.
2.2 MODELING REFLECTANCE AND SPECULARITY
To well solve the problem of reflectance misinterpretation, several methods Liang et al. (2023); Wu et al. (2022); Guo et al. (2022); Boss et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2021a;b; 2022); Jin et al. (2023); Tang et al. (2023a); Lv et al. (2023) employ the physical rendering equation to estimate the diffuse and specular components. Specifically, basis functions like spherical Gaussians Wang et al. (2009); Xu et al. (2013); Yariv al. (2023); Zhang al. (2021a) and spherical harmonics Fridovich-Ker et al. (2022); Basri & Jacobs (2003); Sloan et al. (2002); Yu et al. (2021a) are commonly used to bet- ter approximate rendering equation for closed-form solution. However, the parameters of the basis functions are unknown and need to be learned by the neural network. These estimated parameters do not provide rendering- rreated information for the network during optimization. RefNeRF Verbin et al. (2022) instead introduces reparametrization method to better distinguish reflectance from the appearance. Nevertheless, the reconstructed geometries are still undermined by the view-dependent optical phenomena. Following the reparametrized techniques, RefNeuS Ge et al. (2023) employs an anomaly detection technique for specularity to better reconstruct the geometry, but it produces inferior results for non-reflective objects. UniSDF Wang et al. (2023a) introduces dual-branch structure to model both the reflective and non-reflective parts. It can reconstruct accurate shapes, but it fails to reconstruct high-frequency geometric details like thin structures. All these methods tackle only one-sided problems, either geometry or reflective appearance. Moreover, most methods designed for reflections always require instance-specific tuning. In contrast, our method improves geometry and appearance for both reflective and non-reflective surfaces, while avoiding instance- specific tuning.
METHOD
We first briefly review the neural implicit surface and the rendering equation to provide the basic background for this work (3.1). The reconstruction of geometry and appearance is mutually rein- forcing process. For the geometry, we design a seaed-ggaullarity neural surface to learn both shape and details, serving a good base of appearance (3.2). For appearance, incorporate the ASG en- coding into a weight-modulaated disentangled network to better interpret diffuse and specular color, reducing the ambiguity of geometry (3.3). Finally, we summarize our training objectives (3.4). The overview of our method is shown in Fig. 2.
3.1 PRELIMINARIES
Neural Implicit Surfaces. NeRF Mildenhall et al. (2020) represents a 3D scene as volume density and color. Given a posed camera and a ray direction d, distance values t; sampled along the corresponding ray r = 0 + td. The i-th sampled 3D position z; is then at a distance t; from the camera center. Spatial ML.s are then employed to map v; and d to the volume density d; and color
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
V1
V
granularity Noural Surfare
Ree MILP
Cyef
Rendering
Finc Net
W
V1
WASGUT STE
Figure 2: Pipeline of our method for 3D reconstruction. We utilize a fused-gramularity neural surface structure where we make the most coarse grids and fine grids for accurate surface reconstruction. We then employ view-based radiance field and reflection based radiance field to model diffuse part and specular part accordingly. By learning a 3D weight field, we blend the radiance fields to obtain high-fidellj renderings.
for prediction. The rendered color of pixel is approximated as:
C= = Σ WiCs, wi = Tikii
where a; = - exp(-o;0) is the opacity, 6, = 14 - 4-1 1 is the distance between adjacent samples and T, = [ (1-a;) is the accumulated transmittance. Despite that NeRF can reconstruct photo-realistic scenes, it hard extract surfaces using such density-based representations, leading to noisy and unrealistic results. To represent the scene geometry accurately, signed distance function (SDF) has been widely used as surface representations. The surface of an SDF can be represented by its zero-level set:
(x E R3 00)
where f(x) is the SDF value. In the context of neural SDFs, NeuS Wang et al. (2021a) introduced SDF the neural radiance fields with logistic function to convert the SDF value the opacity og;
T (J (xx)) T. ( (x++))) & ( (x;))
a; max
where +, is the sigmoid function. In this work, adopt this SDF-based volume rendering formu- lation and optimize neural surfaces.
Rendering Equations. As introduced in Levoy Hanrahan (1996), a light field can be defined as the radiance at point in a given direction. A 5D function L(w,, x) can thus be used to represent the light field, where x the position and w, is the outgoing radiance direction in spherical coordinates. This 5D light field is commonly modeled by employing the rendering equation:
(wo: = ca + / L; (wi;)) Ps. (wi, Woi x) (n wi) day
(4)
ca + / (wi, wei n) dwi, ca + Cs.
where сa represents the diffuse color and is the weight of the specular color c. L; is the incom- ing radiance from direction w;, and Ps represents the specular component of the spatially-varying bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF). The function f is defined to describe the out- going radiance after the ray interaction. The final integral is solved over the hemisphere Ω defined by the normal vector n at point Specifically, L,, Ps, n are usually known functions or parameters that describe scene properties such as lighting, material, and shape. Following rendering equation, method models diffuse and specularity using radiance fields separately based the viewing directions.
3.2 FUSED- FUSED-GRANULARRE GRANULARITY NEURAL SURFACES
Multi- resolution hash grid has proved its great scalability for generating fine-grained details, encour- aging to adopt it the geometry representation. The hashgrids partition the space into blocks and
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
convey geometric information to the appearance networks. Despite fast convergence, it still suffers from a conflict that low-resolution grids produce over-smoone mesh but high-resolution grids induce overfitting, Through experiments, have the following observations:
1. A coarser grid gets a larger partition with fewer blocks, which leads to easier convergence. A finer grid partitions the space with more blocks and requires longer training.
2. Using only coarse-grid leads to less- detailed results due to insufficient modeling ability. The limited ability of the hashgrid feature hinders the representation of detailed geometry.
3. Using only fine-grid leads to inaccurate results due to inaccurate learning of appearance network. At the early stage, before the appearance network disambiguates appearance, the fine-grid easily misinterprets specularity as redundant volumes, leading to noisy results.
4. Coarse-to- Soarse-to-fine technique Wang et al. (2022); Li et al. (2023) improves overall details but may not preserve thin structures due to early insufficient partition of the coarse grids.
Based on these observations, we propose a fused-grame granularity structure to consider the fitting na- ture of hashgrids for detailed reconstruction. The fused-grandn granuurraulrrrty neural surfaces initialize and train a set of coarse-granularity grids and set of fine-grand fine-granularity grids together and progressively. Coarse-grids converge faster at the early training stage, we then ensure that fine-grids remain in close proximity the coarse-grids by restricting the normals using curvature loss. Fine-gride can fit the details by smaller partitionn as training continues.
Specifically, we first define (Vi...., J J to be the coarse-gramule the fine- geeenlaratrrty set of mustitresolution hash grids. Given an input position x; we employ coarse- to-fine methods to map it to each grid resolution Vi get x,, in both granularity sets separately. Then the feature vector "n given resolution Vi is obtained via trilinear interpolation of hash entries. The encoding features are then concatenated together as:
set and {V...................... Vz J to be
7 (xx) = (71 (Xi,1, Po (Xi,m)), 7d (x:) = (7m (Xi,)
(5)
(xs,,)),
where the resolution level m and L. are set empirically. The encoded features 7 and y serve as the inputs corresponding branch-MLPs that predict the SDF values and geometric features. The SDF
values and the geometric features of two branches are then fused into single set of values that are passed to the appearance network:
SDF = DDDDF
(6)
F F=F+
The fused-granulen granularity structure effectively avoid discarding thin structures in the early stage, as the fine-granularity grids do not continue from coarse-granularity grids but start from higher- resolution initialization.
3.3 BLENDED RADIANCE FIELDS WITH ASG ENCODING
Estimating color directly using a radiance field usually results in inaccurate geometry for reflec- tive surfaces due to the misinterpretation of the reflectance. Consequently, the MLP is burdened with learning the complex physical meanings of the rendering equation, posing considerable chal- lenge. Several methods instead predict the parameters of basis functions like spherical Gaussians and spherical harmonics to estimate the color. Nevertheless, these parameters do not convey much rendering-related information to the network and thus cannot represent high-frequency appearance details. In order to disambiguate geometry, color, and reflections, the appearance network should have the capacity to represent both diffuse and specular parts. Following Eq. 4, we design a blended radiance field structure to model the diffuse and specularity separately. A reparametrized tech- nique Verbin et al. (2022); Ge et al. (2023); Yariv et al. (2023) is typically adopted to model the reflection viewing direction:
W, = 2 n) - dd,
where the normal be derived tunately, it cannot balance the general non-reflective surfaces due to the misalignment of physically accurate normals. Therefore, use it to only model the specular components.
/d(=)/|VVd(r)) from the signed distance d(x). Unfor-
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Compared with fixed-basis encodings like SHs and SGs, anisotropic spherical Gaussian (ASG) Xu et al. (2013); Han & Xiang (2023) can attain more comprchensive encoding, enabling the represen- tation of full-frequency signals. Due to its ability to represent figh-frequency details, employ the ASG to encode Eq. 4 in the feature space:
ASG(wa [c, y, =), (). - SS(wa:: 2) e Afwo -off--pfee p(=oy)
where [z. 2] (lobe, tangent and bi-tangent) are predefined orthonormal axes in ASG. À R and Ja E IR. represents the sharpness parameters controlling the shape of ASG. & E R represents the lobe amplitude and S is the smooth term defined as S(wa; =) = max(wa- z, 0). We first learn the anisotropic information as a latent feature and pass the feature to the reflection MLP v, to take advantage of the encoded rendering equation, where V is then used to predict the integrated color from the resultant encoding instead of approximating a complex function. We derive the ASG- encoded feature as follows:
X H4 = Spar(F,
Fi aag = ASG(Wr [zz, U, 2), [As (i),
Faag |Fagg F aag.........................aa.. Faggl
where the parameters X, and & in our model are learned by compact network fpor.
Overall, given the 3D position x and view-direction d, our blended radiance fields can be summa- rized as:
Coiew = Vx F)),
(10)
Cref (Faagg wr);
where is the normal at position x, F is the geometric features from the previous SDF MLP. w, here the reparametrized reflected viewing direction and v.,, V, are the MLPs for view-based radiance field and reflection basdd radiance field. By employing the ASG encoding in this branch, AniSDF can model scenes with complex appearances. Furthermore, is noteworthy that we learn the ge- ometry based on pixel-level supervision. Once the representing ability of the appearance network is enhanced on the pixel level, the geometry network is more likely to capture high-frequency details on the geometry level. Inspired by UniSDF Wang al. (2023a), the blended radiance fields are composed using a learned 3D weight field:
$, (V 1x, n, F)),
(11)
where o is the sigmoid function. The two radiance fields are then composed at the pixel level:
C W Cyicaar + (1 w) * Cref-
(12)
3.4 LOss FUNCTIONS
Our model utilizes the RGB loss between the rendered color and the ground-trun -tuut color during the training process:
Ligh ||C Czt 1
(13)
Following prior surface reconstruction works, we adopt the Eikonal loss in order to better approxi- mate valid SDF:
Lesk Ex [x) - 1)
(14)
To encourage the model to learn smooth surfaces, we also adapt the curvature loss proposed by PermutoSDF Rosu & Behnke (2023) to our fused- graeularaalrrttty neural surfaces:
Leuro (nn
(n.
1)2.
(15)
where n is the normal at each position and n, is obtained by slight perturbation of the sample x. We also employ the orientation loss Barron et al. (2021) penalize the "back-facing" normals:
C. = = u.,max(O, d)2.
(16)
For finer geometric details that align with physically correct representation, we regularize the trans- parency be either 0 or 1:
= BCEBaaaa a),
(17)
where BCE refers to the binary cross entropy loss.
Overall, the full loss function in model is defined to be:
f. L.gb + Xi Lesk deLeuru + dsho + Xaha-
(18)

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
NeuS
Neuralangelo
DDGS
NeRO
Ours
GT
Figure 3: Comparison on NeRF synthetic dataset with previous surface reconstruction methods. Our model yields the most accurate geometry reconstruction and highest-quality rendering at the same time. Our model can handle the semi-trange tranptransparent structure and produce accurate renderings for the specular parts.
NeuS
RefNeuS
2DGS
NeRO
Ours
GT
Figure 4: Comparison on Shiny Blender dataset with previous surface reconstruction methods. Our model achieves the most accurate surface reconstruction for reflective objects. In addition, our method can reconstruct luminous objects while all the other methods fail to reconstruct surfaces.
EXPERIMENTS
4.1 EXPERIMENT SETUPS
In our experiment, (2021a), Shiny Blender dataset Verbin et al. (2022), Shelly dataset Wang et al. (2023d) for training and evaluation. We also construct luminous dataset demonstrate the ability of our method. Our model is trained using single Tesla V100 for around 2-3 hours and the hyperparameters for the 0.001, A 0.01. Our
NeRF Synthetic dataset Mildenhall et al. (2020), DTU dataset Wang al.
loss function our method are set to be: X = 0.1, A2 0.001, A coarse-grid is from level 4 to 10 (m). and fine-grid is from 10 (m) to 16 (T.), both with 2 as feature dimension. We learn these two parallel hashgrids without increasing the gridsize that leads high memory consumption. Both the geometry network MLP and View.MLP have 2 hidden layers with 64 neurons. The Ref.MLP has 2 hidden layers with 128 neurons and the Weight.MLP has I hidden layers with 64 neurons. We use marching cubes as the mesh extraction tools.
4.2 COMPARISONS
NeRF Synthetic Dataset. We compare the reconstruction results on NeRF Synthetic Dataset Mildenhall et al. (2020) with previous surface reconstruction methods as shown in Fig. 3. The corresponding qualitative evaluation results are displayed in Table. 1. It can be seen that our method achieves high-quality rendering with the most accurate geometry. With the ASG encoding used in the blended radiance field, our method can produce reflective details, egg. reflection on the
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Chair
Drums
Ficus
Hotdog
Lego
Materials
Mic
Ship
Avg
NeRI
34.17
25.08
30.39
36.82
33.31
30.03
34.78
29.30
31.74
Volumetrie
InstantNGP
35.00
26.02
33.51
37.40
36.39
29.78
36.22
31.10
33.18
Mip-NeRI
35.14
25.48
33.29
37.48
35.70
30.71
36,51
30.41
33.09
Zip-NeRF
34.84
25.84
33,90
37.14
34.84
31.66
35.15
31.38
33.10
PSNR1
3DGS
35.36
26.15
34.87
37.72
35.78
30.00
35.36
30.80
33.32
NeuS
31.22
24.85
27.38
36.04
34.06
29.59
31.56
26.94
30.20
NeRO
28.74
24.88
28.38
32.13
25.66
24.85
28.64
26.55
27.48
Surface
BakedSDF
31.65
20.71
26.33
36.38
32.69
30,48
31.52
27.55
29.66
NeRF2Mesh
34.25
25.04
30.08
35.70
34,90
26.26
32.63
29.47
30.88
2DGS
35.05
26.05
35.57
37.36
35.10
29.74
35.09
30.60
33.07
Ours
35,31
26.23
33.15
37.99
35.69
31,87
35.44
31,69
33,42
Chamfer Distancc.
NeuS
3,95
6.68
2.84
8,36
6.62
4.10
2.99
9.54
5.64
NeRF2Mesh
4,60
6.02
2.44
5.19
5.85
4.51
3,47
8.39
5.06
Surface
NeRO
3.66
8.25
10.52
4.79
8.93
5.68
3.65
21.05
8.32
BakedSDF
4.05
7.41
3.23
6.72
5.69
5.39
3.17
8.98
5.58
Neuralangelo
14.50
16.99
5.72
14.27
6.90
3.27
8.78
16.02
10.81
2DGS
5.25
10.33
4.41
9.55
6.74
9.09
11.06
9.55
8.25
Ours
4.39
5.24
2.75
7.81
5.16
3.03
5.34
5.41
4.89
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on NeRF Synthetic dataset. We compare our model with previous volumetric rendering methods and rrfface-reconstructiin methods, with each cell colored indicate the best and second Our method achieves the hightest quality in both novel view synthesis and surface reconstruction with the highest PSNR 1 and lowest Chamfer Distance & (with 10-3 as the unit).
Helmet
Toaster
Coffee
Car
Mean
Methods
PSNRT
MAE.
PSNRT
MAE.
PSNRT
MAEЛ
PSNRT
MAE,
PSNR
MAE]
NeuS
27.78
1.12
23.51
2.87
28.82
1.99
26.34
1.10
26.61
1.77
RefNeRF
29.68
29.48
25.70
42.87
34.21
12.24
30.82
14.93
30.10
24.88
RefNeuS
32.85
0.38
26.97
1.47
31.05
0.99
29.92
0.80
30.20
0.91
Ours
34.44
0.41
26.98
1.15
33.24
1.14
29.56
0.70
31.05
0.85
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on Shiny Blender dataset with each cell colored to indicate the best and second We compare our approach with previous reflective surface reconstruction meth- ods. Our model achieves the best results in both novel view synthesis and surface reconstruction with the highest PSNR and lowest surface normal mean angular error MAE 4.
gong, while other methods fail synthesize the complex specularity. Thanks to the proposed fused- granularity surfaces, our method also outperforms others on the high-frequency geometric details, e.g., the of sails the ship.
Shiny Blender Dataset.
To further demonstrate the positive effect of the ASG encoding on the geometry, we compare the geometry of method with previous reflective surface reconstruction methods on the Shiny Blender Dataset Verbin et al. (2022), as shown in Fig. 4. The corresponding quantitative results are also provided in Table. 2. NeuS Wang
(2021a) and 2DGS Huang et al. (2024) suffer from the ambiguity of reflective surfaces and synthesize a concave surface of the toaster. RefNeuS Ge et al. (2023) and NeRO Liu et al. (2023b) release the problem reflective ambiguity, but their geometries are smooth and lack details. Besides, they also have artifacts, e.g., missing handle for ReiNeuS, and hole of bread reflection for NeRO. Due to the better modeling of diffuse and specular appearance, our architecture can better represent the concavity and convexity of a reflective object, and further solve the ambiguity of surfaces. We also demonstrate high-quality results in both the rendering and geometry of reflective objects in quantitative results in Table. 2.
DTU Dataset. We also compare our method with previous bDs-b methods on the DTU dataset that involves the ground truth of the point cloud, more suitable for geometry comparison. The qualitative comparison results are shown Table. 3. Our method achieves the best results among all methods.
Complex Objects. Moreover, we provide more complex cases on the Shelly Datasets Wang et al. (2023d) to further demonstrate the ability of model to reconstruct fuzzy objects. As shown in
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Scan ID
24
37
40
55
63
65
69
83
97
105
106
110
114
118
122
Mcan
COLMAP
1.02
3.05
1.40
1.36
NeRF
1.90
1.60
1.85
0.58
2.28
1.27
1.47
1.67
2.05
1.07
0.88
2.53
1.06
1.15
0.96
1.49
NeuS
1.00
1.37
0.93
0.43
1.10
0.65
0.57
1.48
1.09
0.83
0.52
1.20
0.35
0.49
0.54
0.84
VolSDF
1.14
1.26
0.81
0.49
1.25
0.70
0.72
1.29
1.18
0.70
0.66
1.08
0.42
0.61
0.55
0,86
Neuralnnelo
0.49
1.05
0.95
0.38
1.22
1.10
2.16
1.68
1.78
0.99
0.44
1,46
0.41
1.13
0.97
1.07
NeuralWarp
0.49
0.71
0.38
0.79
0.81
0.82
1.20
1.06
0.68
0.66
0.74
0.41
0.63
0.51
0.68
Gaussian Surfels
0.66
0.93
0,54
0.41
1.06
1.14
0.85
1.29
1.53
0.79
0.82
1.58
0.45
0.66
0.53
0.88
2DGS
0.83
1.36
1.27
0.76
0.52
0.80
Ours
0.52
0.82
0.65
0.43
0.76
0.64
0.71
0.97
0.86
0.64
0.52
0.67
0.42
0.67
0.50
0.66
Table 3: Quantitative comparison on the DTU dataset with each cell colored to indicate the best and second. We compare our method with previous surfacc-reeconstrucion methods. Our method achieves the highest quality of surface reconstruction with the lowest Chamfer Distance
w/ WAS W/
GT
Figure 5: Ablation results ASG encoding. We demonstrate the ability to synthesize specular details with the use of ASG encoding.
Fig. 19, 2DGS produces blurry results, while method successfully reconstructs the details of hair and fur. Additionally, we build a luminous dataset and compare various methods on it. We display extremely hard case with thin lines and luminous glass in Fig. 4. RefNeuS Ge et al. (2023) generates a coarse and smooth mesh without any details. Despite more details, NeuS Wang al. (2021a) and 2DGS Huang et al. (2024) produce broken shell. NeRO Liu et al. (2023b) learns relatively complete shape but performs badly in the luminous part and fails to reconstruct the thin lines. In contrast, our model can disambiguate the geometry from the luminous appearance and generate accurate geometry of both structures.
4.3 ABLATION STUDIES
In this section, we study the effect of individual components proposed in our work, i.e., Anisotropic Spherical Gaussian (ASG) encoding, and grand-granllarity neural surfaces.
ASG Encoding. We compare ASG encoding with common positional encoding based on the same geometry learning pipeline. As demonstrated in Fig. 5, the results with ASG encoding show better appearances with clearer reflections compared to the positional encoding. This is because ASG en- coding can represent anisotropic scenes more comprehensively making better use of the rendering equation than other fixed basis-functions encoding. We also show quantitative experiments ducted on the NeRF synthetic dataset in Table. 4. also demonstrates the superiority of ASG encoding.
Fused-Granularity Neural Surface. To prove the effectiveness of fused-granulant surface, we set the same appearance learning structure and compare architecture with previous single-branch searse-to-fint architecture. As shown in Fig. 6, results without fused granularity miss details in figh-frequency parts. Due to the initialization from coarse grid, it filters the thin structure like

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Rendering (PSNR1)
Geometry (CDL)
w/o ASG, w/o Fused
30.25
5.64
w/o ASG, w/ Fused w/ ASG, w/o Fused w/ ASG, w/ Fused (Ours)
32.38
5.16
33.19
5.37
33.42
4.89
Table 4: Ablation quantitative results on NeRF Synthetic dataset. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the ASG encoding and fused-granularity surfaces.
w/o Fused
w/ Fused
GT
Figure 6: Ablation on mused-granularit neural surfaces. We show the effectiveness of the fused- granularity surfaces for geometric details reconstruction.
the net of sails in the early stage and cannot recover filtered parts in the following fine stage. In contrast, because of an additional fine grid initialization, results with fused granularity can keep thin structures in the early stage and reconstruct them during the fine stage. The quantitative experiments in Table. 4 show the consistent results with the qualitative results. Besides, with both the ASG encoding and fused-grandn granulartty surfaces, obtain the best results.
CONCLUSION
In this work, present AniSDF, unified SDF-based approach that optimizes fused- sueddgranullrity neural surfaces with anisotropic encoding for high-fidelity 3D reconstruction. Our method is based on two key components: 1) Fused-granularity neural surfaces that make the most of both coarse- granularity hash grids and fine-gramin -inagrraullarity hash grids. 2) Blended radiance fields that blend the view-based radiance field and reflection-based radiance field with anisotropic spherical Gaussian encoding, The first component enables the representation of high-frequency geometric details and balances the overall structures and high-frequency geometric details. The second component takes advantage of the rendering equation and allows our model to synthesize photorealistic renderings, successfully disambiguating the reflective appearance. Extensive experiments showcase that our method achieves high-quality results in both geometry reconstruction and novel-view synthesis.
6
LIMITATIONS
Despite high-quality results, AniSDF still has several limitations. (1) AniSDF cannot achieve real-time rendering- could a possible solution that we adapt the SDF-baking method from BakedSDF Yariv al (2023) for ASG encoding to improve the efficiency in future work. (2) An- other limitation is that AniSDF fails in cases with complex indirect illumination due to the lack of materials estimation network.
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported in part by NSFC (62201342), and Shanghai Municipal Science and Tech- nology Major Project (2021SHZDZZ0000), Authors would like appreciate the Student Innova- tion Center of SJTU for providing GPUs.
REFERENCES
Dejan Azinovic, Ricardo Martin-Brualle Dan B. Goldman, Matthias Nießner, and Justus Thies. Neural RGB-D surface reconstruction. In CVPR, pp. 1280-6291, 2022.
Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pp. 3835-5844, 2021.
Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pp. 19697-19705, 2023.
Ronen Basri and David Jacobs. Lambertian reflectance and linear subspaces. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 25(2):218-23) 2003.
Mark Boss, Varun Jampani, Raphael Braun, Ce Liu, Jonathan T. Barron, and Hendrik A. Lensch. Neural-pil: Neural pre-integrated lighting for reflectance decomposition. In NeurlPS, pp. 10691- 10704, 2021.
Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In ECCV, volume 13692, pp. 333-350, 2022.
Hanlin Chen, Chen Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Neusg: Neural implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guidance. arxiv preprint arXiv:2312.00846. 2023a.
Zhang Chen, Zhong Li, Liangchen Song, Lele Chen, Jingyi Yu, Junsong Yuan, and Yi Xu. Neurbf: A neural fields representation with adaptive radial basis functions. In ICCV, pp. 4159 4171, 2023b.
François Darmon, Bénédicte Bascle, Jean-Clément Devaux, Pascal Monasse, and Mathieu Aubry. Improving neural implicit surfaces geometry with patch warping. In CVPR, pp. 6250-6259, 2022.
Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In CVPR, pp. 5491-5500, 2022.
Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In CVPR, 2022.
Qiancheng Fu, Qingshan Xu, Yew Soon Ong, and Wenbing Tao. Geo-neus: Geometry-consistent
neural implicit surfaces learning for multi-view reconstruction. In NeurlPS, 2022.
Wenhang Ge, Tao Hu, Haoyu Zhao, Shu Liu, and Ying-Cong Chen. Ref-neus: Ambiguity-reduced neural implicit surface learning for multi-view reconstruction with reflection. In ICCV, pp. 4228- 4237,2025
Antoine Guédon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. In CVPR, pp. 5354-5363, 2024.
Yuan-Chen Guo, Di Kang, Linchao Bao, Yu He, and Song-Hai Zhang. Nerfren: Neural radiance fields with reflections. In CVPR, pp. 18388-18397, 2022.
Yuan-Chen Guo, Yan-Pei Cao, Chen Wang. Yu He, Ying Shan, and Song-Hai Zhang. Vmesh: Hybrid volume-mesh representation for efficient view synthesis. In SIGGRAPH Asia, pp. 17:1- 17:11, 2023.
Kang Han and Wei Xiang. Multiscale tensor decomposition and rendering equation encoding for view synthesis. In CVPR, pp. 4232 4241, 2023.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Wenbo Hu, Yuling Wang, Lin Ma, Bangbang Yang, Lin Gao, Xiao Liu, and Yuewen Ma. Tri-miprf: Tri-mip representation for efficient anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. ICCV, pp. 19717 19726, 2023.
Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In SIGGRAPH, 2024.
Yingwenqi Jiang, Jiadong Tu, Yuan Liu, Xifeng Gao, Xiaoxiao Long, Wenping Wang, and Yuexin Ma. Gaussianshader: 3d gaussian splatting with shading functions for reflective surfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17977 2023.
Haian Jin, Isabella Liu, Peijia Xu, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Songfang Han, Sai Bi, Xiaowei Zhou, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. Tensoir: Tensorial inverse rendering. In CVPR, pp. 165-174, 2023.
Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splat- ting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):19::1113:: 2023.
Tobias Kirschstein, Shenhan Qian, Simon Giebenhain, Tim Walter, and Matthias Nießner. Nersem- ble: Multi-view radiance field reconstruction of human heads. ACM Trans. Graph., 1214):161:1- 161:14, 2023.
Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Scol, Jaakko Lchtinen, and Timo Aila. Mod- ular primitives for high-performance differentiable rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 19::): 194:14 14, 2020.
Mare Levoy and Pat Hanrahan. Light field rendering. SIGGRAPH, pp. 31-42, 1996.
Zhaoshuo Li, Thomas Müller, Alex Evans, Russell H. Taylor, Mathias Unberath, Ming-Yt Yu Liu, and Chen-Hsuan Lin. Neuralangelo: High-fidelity neural surface reconstruction. In CVPR, pp- 2023.
Ruofan Liang. Huiting Chen, Chunlin Li, Fan Chen, Selvakumar Panneer, and Nandita Vijaykumar. ENVIDR: implicit differentialle renderer with neural environment lighting. In ICCV, pp. 79-89, 2023.
Yu-Tao Liu, Li Wang, Jie Yang, Weikai Chen, Xiaoxu Meng, Bo Yang. and Lin Gao. Neudf: Leaning neural unsigned distance fields with volume rendering. In CVPR, pp. 237-247, 2023a.
Yuan Liu, Peng Wang, Cheng Lin, Xiaoxiao Long, Jiepeng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Nero: Neural geometry and BRDF reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4): 14:1-1 14:22, 2023b.
Zhen Liu, Yao Feng, Yuliang Xiu, Weiyang Liu, Liam Paull, Michael J. Black, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Ghost on the shell: An expressive representation general 3d shapes. In ICLR, 2024.
Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Jason M. Saragih, Gabriel Schwartz, Andreas M. Lehrmann, and Yaser Sheikh. Neural volumes: learning dynamic renderable volumes from images. ACM Trans. Graph., 38(4):65:166:: 2019.
Guillaume Loubet, Nicolas Holzschuch, and Wenzel Jakob. Reparameterizing discontinuous inte- grands for differentiable rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., (886))228:1-228: 2019.
Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. CVPR, 2024.
Fujun Luan, Shuang Zhao, Kavita Bala, and Zhao Dong. Unified shape and SVBRDF recovery using differentiable monte carlo rendering. Comput. Graph. Forum, 10141:011-113, 2021.
Jipeng Lv, Heng Guo, Guanying Chen, Jinxiu Liang, and Boxin Shi. Non-lambertian multispectral photometric stereo via spectral reflectance decomposition. In IJCAI, 2023.
Jiahui Lyu, Bojian Wu, Dani Lischinski, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Hui Huang. Differentiable Eefraction-tracing for mesh reconstruction of transparent objects. ACM Trans. Graph., 39(6): 1195:11, 2020.
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Xiaoyang Lyu, Yang- Tian Sun, Yi-Hua Huang, Xiuzhe Wu, Ziyi Yang, Yilun Chen, Jiangmiao Pang, and Xiaojuan Qi. 3dgsr: Implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting. arxiv preprint arXiv:2404. 00409, 2024.
Ricardo Martin- Brualla,, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Jonathan T. Barron, Alexey Dosovit- skiy, and Daniel Duckworth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for unconstrained photo collections. In CVPR, pp. 7210-7219, 2021.
Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In ECCV, 2020.
Jacob Munkberg, Wenzheng Chen, Jon Hasselgren, Alex Evans, Tianchang Shen, Thomas Müller, Jun Gao, and Sanja Fidler. Extracting triangular 3d models, materials, and lighting from images. In CVPR, pp.
2022.
Michael Niemeyer and Andreas Geiger. GIRAFFE: representing scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields. CVPR, pp. 11453-11466 2021.
Michael Niemeyer, Lars M. Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, and Andreas Geiger. Differentiable vol- umetric rendering: Learning implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision. In CVPR. pp. 3501-3512, 2020.
Michael Oechsle, Songyou Peng. and Andreas Geiger. UNISURF: unifying neural implicit surfaces and radiance fields multi-view reconstruction. ICCV, pp. 5569-5579, 2021.
Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B. Goldman, Steven M. Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualle Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields. In ICCV, pp- 5845-5854, 2021.
Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer, D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. In CVPR, pp. 10318-10327, 2021.
Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Fabian Manhardt, Diego Martin Arroyo, Michael Niemeyer, Abhijit Kundu, and Federico Tombari. Nerfmeshing: Distilling neural radiance fields into geometrically- accurate 3d meshes. In 3DV, 2023.
Christian Reiser, Richard Szeliski, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Andreas Geiger, Jonathan T. Barron, and Peter Hedman. MERF: memory-efficient radiance fields for real-time view synthesis in unbounded scenes. ACM Trans. Graph., 42()):99:11) 2023.
Radu Alexandru Rosu and Sven Behnke. Permutosdf: Fast multi-view reconstruction with implicit surfaces using permutohedral lattices. In CVPR. pp. 8466-8475, 2023.
Zixi Shu. Ran Yi, Yuqi Meng, Yutong Wu, and Lizhuang Ma. Ri-octree: Accelerate plenoctree rendering with batched regular tracking and neural denoising for real-time neural radiance fields. In SIGGRAPH Asia, pp. 99:1-99:11 2023.
Peter-Pike J. Sloan, Jan Kautz, and John M. Snyder. Precomputed radiance transfer for real-time rendering in dynamic, low-frequency lighting environments. ACM Trans. Graph., 21(3):527-536, 2002.
Pratul P. Srinivasan, Boyang Deng, Xiuming Zhang, Matthew Tancik, Ben Mildenhall, and Jonathan T. Barron. Nerv: Neural reflectance and visibility fields for relighting and view syn- thesis. In CVPR, pp. 7495-7504, 2021.
Jiaming Sun, Xi Chen, Qianqian Wang, Zhengqi Li, Hadar Averbuch-Ein Elor, Xiaowei Zhou, and Noah Snavely, Neural 3D reconstruction the wild. In SIGGRAPH, 2022.
Jiajun Tang, Haofeng Zhong, Shuchen Weng, and Boxin Shi. Luminaire: Illumination-ware con- ditional image repainting for lighting-realistic generation. In NeurlPS, 2023a.
Jiaxiang Tang, Hang Zhou, Xiaokang Chen, Tianshu Hu, Errui Ding, Jingdong Wang, and Gang Zeng. Delicate textured mesh recovery from nerf via adaptive surface refinement. In ICCV, pp. 17693-17703, 2023b.
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Dor Verbin, Peter Hedman, Ben Mildenhall, Todd E. Zickler, Jonathan T. Barron, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Ref-nerf: Structured view-dependent appearance for neural radiance fields. CVPR, pp. 5981-490,, 2022.
Delio Vicini, Sébastien Speierer, and Wenzel Jakob. Differentiable signed distance function render- ing. ACM Trans. Graph., 41(4): 2022.
Fangjinhua Wang, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Michael Niemeyer, Richard Szeliski, Mare Pollefeys, and Federico Tombari. Unisdf: Unifying neural representations for high-fidelity 3d reconstruction of complex scenes with reflections. arxiv preprint arXiv:2312. 132855 2023a.
Jiaping Wang. Peiran Ren, Minmin Gong, John M. Snyder, and Baining Guo. All-frequency render- ing of dynamic, spatially-varying reflectance. ACM Trans. Graph., 28(5):133, 2009.
Peng Wang. Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. NeurIPS, pp. 27171-27188 2021a.
Yida Wang, David Tan, Federico Tombari, and Nassir Navab. Raneus: Ray-adaptive neural surface reconstruction. In 3DV, 2023b.
Yiming Wang, Qin Han, Marc Habermann, Kostas Daniilidis, Christian Theobalt, and Lingjie Liu. Neus2: Fast learning of neural implicit surfaces for multi-view reconstruction. In ICCV, pp. 3272-3283, 2023c.
Yiqun Wang, Ivan Skorokhodov, and Peter Wonka. Hf-neus: Improved surface reconstruction using high-frequency details. In NeurIPS, 2022.
Zian Wang. Tianchang Shen, Merlin Nimier-David, Nicholas Sharp, Jun Gao, Alexander Keller, Sanja Fidler, Thomas Müller, and Zan Gojeic. Adaptive shells for efficient neural radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 2(6):260:1-260) 15, 2023d.
Zirui Wang, Shangzhe Wu, Weidi Xie, Min Chen, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Nerf-: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07066, 2021b.
Tong Wu, Jiaqi Wang. Xingang Pan, Xudong Xu, Christian Theobalt, Ziwei Liu, and Dahua Lin. Voxurf: Voxel-based efficient and accurate neural surface reconstruction. In ICLR, 2023.
Xiuchao Wu, Jiamin Xu, Zihan Zhu, Hujun Bao, Qixing Huang, James Tompkin, and Weiwei Xu.
Scalable neural indoor scene rendering, ACM Trans. Graph., 41(4):98:1-9811,, 2022.
Kun Xu, Wei-Lun Sun, Zhao Dong, Dan-Yong Zhao, Run-Dong Wu, and Shi-Min Hu. Anisotropic spherical gaussians. ACM Trans. Graph., (0::)::9::1109:111 2013.
Ziyi Yang, Xinyu Gao, Yang-Ties Tian Sun, Yi-Hua Huang, Xiaoyang Lyu, Wen Zhou, Shaohui Jiao, Xiaojuan Qi, and Xiaogang Jin. Spec-gaussian: Anisotropic view-dependent appearance for 3d gaussian splatting. arxiv preprint arXiv:2402. 15870, 2024.
Lior Yariv, Yoni Kasten, Dror Moran, Meirav Galun, Matan Atzmon, Ronen Basri, and Yaron Lip- man. Multiview neural surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and appearance. In NeurlPS, 2020.
Lior Yariy, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. Volume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. In NeurlPS, pp. 4805 4815, 2021.
Lior Yariv, Peter Hedman, Christian Reiser, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Richard Szeliski, Jonathan Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real-time view synthesis. In SIGGRAPH, pp. 46:1-46:9, 2023.
Alex Yu, Ruilong Li, Matthew Tancik, Hao Li, Ren Ng, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoctrees for real-time rendering of neural radiance fields. ICCV, pp. 5732-5741, 2021a.
Alex Yu, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one few images. In CVPR, pp. 4578 4587, 2021b.
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Zehao Yu, Songyou Peng, Michael Niemeyer, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Monosdf: Ex- ploring monocular geometric cues for neural implicit surface reconstruction. NewrIPS, 2022.
Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Mip-splatting: Alias-
free 3d gaussian splatting. CVPR, 2024.
Kai Zhang, Gernot Riegler, Noah Snavely, and Vladlen Koltun. Nerf++: Analyzing and improving neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07492, 2020.
Kai Zhang, Fujum Luan, Qianqian Wang, Kavita Bala, and Noah Snavely, Physg:
Inverse rendering with spherical gaussians for physics-based material editing and relighting. In CVPR, pp. 5453- 5462, 2021a.
Xiuming Zhang, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Boyang Deng, Paul E. Debevec, William T. Freeman, and Jonathan T. Barron. Nerfactor: neural factorization of shape and reflectance under an unknown illumination. ACM Trans. Graph., 40:6: 2021b.
Youjia Zhang, Teng Xu, Junqing Yu, Yuteng Ye, Yanqing Jing, Junle Wang, Jingyi Yu, and Wei Yang. Nemf: Inverse volume rendering with neural microflake field. In ICCV, pp. 22862-22872, 2023.
Yuanqing Zhang, Jiaming Sun, Xingyi He, Huan Fu, Rongfei Jia, and Xiaowei Zhou. Modeling indirect illumination for inverse rendering. In CVPR, pp. 18622- 18622-18631, 2022.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
A
APPENDIX
A. CASSD-GRANNLARITY NEURAL SURFACES ABLATION
To further demonstrate the effectiveness of the fused-granularity structure. we conduct additional experiments several related components including 1. maximum hashgrid resolution, 2. different granularity structure, experimental results clarification.
Maximum hashgrid resolution. As shown in Fig. 7, we vary the maximum hashgrid resolution from 1024 to 4096. can seen that by using 1024 as the maximum resolution, the model can not reconstruct some geometric details like the net of the sails. On the other hand, using 4096 as the maximum resolution can achieve slightly better results but requires larger memory consumption (32GB). Therefore, we use 2048 the default resolution in our model (24GB).
1024 Resolution
2048 Resolution
4096 Resolution
Figure 7: Ablation of maximum hashgrid resolution. We showcase the ship scene reconstructed using different maximum hashgrid resolution.
Different granularity structure. As shown in Fig. 8, results with two fine branches with the same resolution setting produce a noisy surface and require larger memory consumption (30GB), while those with coarse branches fail to reconstruct geometric details like the net of the sails. In contrast, the fused-granularity structure make the most of both branches and reconstruct the best results with moderate memory consumption (24GB).
Coarse + Coarse
Fine Fine
Coarse Fine
Figure 8: Ablation of granularity structure. We showcase the ship scene reconstructed using different granularity structure.
Experimental results clarification. We showcase the ablation study of level m in Fig. 9. It can be seen that setting 9 and 11 both generate inferior results. We also present the comparison of the reconstructed results of mic Fig. 10. Since most methods tend to learn a solid geometry for those objects with hollow parts, e.g. Mic., Chamfer Distance is not always accurate to reflect the geometry quality. Due to its points sampling process on the mesh, it tends to produce better quantitative results for a smooth surface for these objects. Our reconstructed geometry displays better visual effect than NeRO but gets worse quantitative result. We also conduct experiment by adjusting the seper-parammter. to produce smoother surface and achieve the best metric.
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Ground Truth
m 10
m
m
CD: 5.16
CD: 5.28
CD: 5.24
Figure 9: Ablation of level m. We showcase the lego scene reconstructed using different level m.
Ground Truth
Ours
NeRO
Ours-Finetuned
CD: 5.34
CD: 3.65
CD: 2.83
Figure 10: Comparison on reconstruction results of mic.
A.2 BLENDED RADIANCE FIELDS VISUALIZATION.
AniSDF utilizes blended radiance fields to reconstruct high-fidelity renderings. As shown in Fig. 11, our method can well separate reflectance from base color by utilizing the blended radiance fields structure. AniSDF also has the ability to reconstruct reflective surfaces for real-world cases as shown in Fig. 12,
Ground Truth
Cview
Cref
Ground Truth
Cview
Cref
Figure 11: Visualization of Coiew and Gref- We showease the reconstructed results of Criew and Cref by our blended radiance fields.
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Ground Truth
Normal
Ground Truth
Normal
Real-world reflective surface reconstruction results. We showcase the reconstruction results of sedan.gardenspher in Shiny Blender dataset and coral in NeRO Glossy-Real dataset.
Figure 12:
A.3 UNBOUNDED SCENES
AniSDF can also reconstruct real unbounded scene with great details. We use MipNeRF360 Barron al. (2021) for demonstration. The reconstructed results are shown in Fig. Our method can reconstruct accurate geometry including the thin structures and the fuzzy background with high- fidelity rendering. We also present the foreground rendering result with the depth map and normal map of the bicycle and bonsai scene in Fig. 14. The qualitative comparison of rendering quality are shown in Table. 5. By employing the fused-granularity neural surfaces along with the anisotropic encoding, synthesize high-quality rendering for real-life complex scenes.
Figure 13: Reconstructed mesh results of MipNeRF360 dataset. We showcase the bicycle and kitchen scene reconstructed using our method.
Outdoor garden
Indoor
Method
Avg.
Avg.
bicycle
flowers
stump
trechill
kitchen
bonsai
InstantNGP
22.79
19.19
25.26
24.80
22.46
22.90
30.31
26.21
29,00
31.08
29.15
Mip-NeRF
24.40
21.64
26.94
26.36
22.81
24.47
31.40
29.44
32.02
33.11
31.72
3DGS
25.24
21.52
27.41
26.55
22.49
24.64
30.63
28.70
30.32
31.98
30.41
BakedSDI
23,05
20.55
26.44
24.39
22.55
23.40
30.68
27.99
30.91
31.26
30.21
UniSDF
24.67
21.83
27.46
26.39
23.51
24.77
31.25
29.26
31.73
32,86
31.28
2DGS
24.87
21.15
26.95
26.47
22.27
24.34
31.06
28.55
30.50
31.52
30.40
Ours
25.36
22.32
27.65
26.63
23.02
24.99
31.30
30.23
31.69
33.25
31.62
Table 5: Rendering comparison MipNeRF360 dataset. We compare our method with previous methods and present the PSNR1 results.
18

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Foreground
Depth
Normal
Figure 14:
Real unbounded scene reconstruction results of MipNeRF360 dataset. We showcase the bicycle and bonsai scene reconstructed using our method.
A.4 ADDITIONAL. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
AniSDF reconstructs figh-fideitty geometry results while boosting the rendering quality of SDF- based methods by great scale. We present additional comparison the Ship scene in NeRF syn- thetic dataset in Fig. 15. Our model yields the most accurate geometry reconstruction and highest- quality rendering the same time. Our model can handle the net-like structure and produce accurate renderings for the specular parts.
NeuS
Neuralangelo
2DGS
NcRO
Ours
GT
Figure 15: Comparison on NeRF synthetic dataset with previous surface reconstruction methods.
We also present additional results to demonstrate the highly detailed mesh reconstructed using our method Fig. 16. To further demonstrate the reconstruction thin structures, we present the rendering result along with the depth map and normal map in Fig. 17. It can be seen that we can reconstruct thin structures and synthesize
renderings like the reflection.
We showcase the reconstruction of fuzzy object in Fig. 18 and Fig. 19. It is noteworthy that recon- structing hair is a long-standing challenging problem for surface reconstruction methods. Neverthe- less, model yields synthesize high-fidelity renderings for hair and fur that surpass all the surface-bard based methods.
accurate representation than the other methods. Our method can also
For DTU dataset, as shown in Fig. 20 and Fig. 21, our method reconstruct accurate surfaces for objects with rich details while other methods introduce noise or oversmooth results. In addition, our method can reconstruct accurate reflective surfaces under complex lighting.
19

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Figure 16: Detailed presentation of the reconstructed mesh by our method. We demonstrate that can reconstruct accurate geometry with fine details.
GT
Rendering
Depth
Normal
Figure 17: Additional reconstruction results on NeRF synthetic dataset with thin structures.
NeRO
2DGS
Neuralangelo
Ours
GT
Figure 18: Comparison on the fuzzy object with previous surface reconstruction methods, AniSDF
can reconstruct more accurate geometry of fuzzy object than other methods.
20

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
2DGS
Ours
GT
Figure 19: Rendering comparison on fuzzy object with 2DGS. Our method achieves better results for rendering hair and fur than 2DGS.
2DGS
Neuralangelo
Ours
Figure 20: Comparison DTU dataset. We demonstrate that AniSDF can reconstruct more detailed geometry than 2DGS and Neuralangelo.
Rendering
Depth
Normal
NeuS
Ours
Figure 21: Comparison on DTU reflective dataset. Our method reconstruct accurate surface for reflective objects.
21

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
A.5 POSSIBLE APPLICATION
Relighting, AniSDF can provide accurate geometry for downstream application like inverse ren- dering and relighting. SUch tasks require accurate geometry for further materials estimation and relighting. We showcase the relighting results using the mesh generated by our method in Fig. 22.
Figure 22: Relighting application demonstration. We showcase the relighing result based on our reconstructed geometry.
Computer Graphics Animation. We highlight that obtain accurate geometry for objects with thin structures and even candles in Fig. 23. Though the fire is not modeled by mesh in our phys- ical world, we can utilize the accurate mesh of the candles for animation and render the animated results.
Figure 23: Animation application demonstration. Our method can reconstruct the mesh candles that can be further used in animation.
22


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "jM7dBxEX0Y", "reviewer": "Reviewer_JMuD", "summary": "The paper presents a high-quality 3D surface reconstruction method- AniSDF, which learns fused-granularity neural surfaces with physics-based encoding. The authors propose fused multi-resolution grids for geometry modeling, and adopt Anisotropic Gaussians for appearance modeling. With these designs, AniSDF can reconstruct objects with complex structures and produce high-quality renderings on benchmarked datasets.", "questions": "1. Add real-world experiments and more benchmark datasets (with larger scene scale).\n2. Add visualizations to the decomposed appearance throughout the figures in the paper.\n3. Add missing details in the method section.\n4. Add some comparison on the train - test efficiency and memory footprint.\n4. Revised the discussions and ablation studies as suggested in the weaknesses.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. The paper is well written and easy to follow. The idea is clean and the pipeline do not introduce additional hyper-parameter tuning and selection compared to some other recent methods for neural surface reconstruction / rendering.\n2. The idea to fuse multi-resolution grids for detailed surface reconstruction is novel. AniSDF’s fused-granularity structure balances high- and low-resolution information to improve convergence and accuracy. This approach allows for a more adaptive reconstruction that captures both overall structure and fine details, which is validated by their good geometry quality (chamfer) in the experiments.\n3. The use of ASG encoding in appearance modeling seems to be effective and handles specular reflections very well.", "weaknesses": "1. Experiments for reflective surfaces mainly come from synthetic data, it would be helpful to understand the model’s ability if we could see results of more real-world reflective surface data, such as trucks from Tanks and Templates, sedans from Refnerf, The Glossy-Real dataset from Nero.\n2. The appearance modeling involves blending view-based and reflection-based radiance fields, however, the method's ability to decompose base color and reflection color is unknown.  It would be better if the author could add a visualization of view-based color, reflection-based color, and the blending weight.\n3. Some details of the methods are missing. The derivation of normal and the method for mesh extraction are not discussed.\n4. The reason behind the choice of grid level `m` and `l`  is not clear. It would be clearer if an ablation study about grid resolution were added.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "LAlejixYtb", "reviewer": "Reviewer_ArLb", "summary": "This paper provides a fused-granularity neural surfaces with physics-based anisotropic\nspherical Gaussian encoding for high-fidelity 3D reconstruction. The authors show state-of-the-art novel-view rendering and geometry reconstruction results on several datasets, including NeRF-Synthetic, Shiny Blender, and DTU datasets. The proposed method shows very convincing reconstruction of challenging specular and furry objects.", "questions": "1. For Eq. 10, why would both c_view and c_ref depend on view directions? Would it encourage better diffuse-specular separation if one makes c_view view-independent?", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1. This paper is well-written and easy to follow. \n2. Qualitative and quantitative results of the proposed method seems very strong, beating prior baselines like NeuS, RefNeRF, RefNeuS. Reconstructed meshes look clean with high-quality surface normals. \n3. The authors validate the proposed method on both synthetic datasets (Nerf-synthetic and Shiny-blender), and real datasets (DTU), and it's nice to see improvements.", "weaknesses": "1. To further convince me about the method's performance on reconstructing specularity, I would need to see the view synthesis videos, as opposed to the static frames shown in the paper and project page. Unfortunately, I could not find such videos (except the relighting ones). \n\n2. For the proposed blended radiance field (Eq. 12), I think it would be great to provide some visualizations of the individual components: w, c_view, c_ref, to better understand what each learnt components look like. \n\n3. I'm unsure why the fused-granularity hash grids actually works better than a plain multi-resolution hash grids. It seems to me that the major difference of it from a plain one is the additional handcrafted equation (6) that says the final SDF is an addition of coarse and fine SDF. In the plain multi-resolution hash grid, the final SDF is predicted by a MLP from concatenated multi-resolution features. This could benefit some justification.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "6xl1Ed5I51", "reviewer": "Reviewer_7ZeX", "summary": "This paper introduces AniSDF, an approach to enhance the quality of SDF-based methods in geometry reconstruction and novel-view synthesis tasks, enabling the physically-based rendering ability. Firstly, AniSDF uses the parallel branch structure of coarse hash-grids and fine hash-grids, replacing the former sequential coarse-to-fine training strategy, to learn a fused-granularity neural surface to improve the quality of SDF. Secondly, AniSDF uses Anisotropic Spherical Gaussian Encoding to learn blended radiance fields with a physics-based rendering, disambiguating the reflective appearance.", "questions": "1. Modify the typo in Line 093 (‘Oue’) to ‘Our.’\n\n2. The physical-based rendering method via ASG is similar to $\\cite{yang2024spec}$. Is this work also inspired by similar works using ASG to learn the specular representation in 3DGS?\n\n3. The blended radiance fields with ASG encoding are composed of $c_{view}$ and $c_{ref}$ though a learnable weight. According to Eq. 4, the light field is modeled by $c_d$ and $c_s$, diffuse color and specular color. So, can $c_{view}$ be regarded as purely diffuse and $c_{ref}$ as the pure composition of specular? If so, can the radiance fields be considered purely diffuse when $\\omega$ is 1? If not, can this work disentangle the light field to only diffuse or specular field?\n\n4. Refer to $\\cite{han2023multiscale}$, they control the final color by adding the scale to the color calculated from ASG when retaining the diffuse color term calculated from the first three orders of SH. So, what motivates adding weight to diffuse and specular in this work? What are the differences between your light field calculation in the blended radiance fields with $\\cite{han2023multiscale}$?\n\n@article{han2023multiscale,\n  title     = {Multiscale Tensor Decomposition and Rendering Equation Encoding for View Synthesis},\n  author    = {Kang Han and Weikang Xiang},\n  journal   = {Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition},\n  year      = {2023},\n  doi       = {10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00412},\n  bibSource = {Semantic Scholar https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa41843888fffada6335b6c5cdbcd2d4bb5cf9da}\n}\n\n@article{yang2024spec,\n  title={Spec-gaussian: Anisotropic view-dependent appearance for 3d gaussian splatting},\n  author={Yang, Ziyi and Gao, Xinyu and Sun, Yangtian and Huang, Yihua and Lyu, Xiaoyang and Zhou, Wen and Jiao, Shaohui and Qi, Xiaojuan and Jin, Xiaogang},\n  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15870},\n  year={2024}\n}", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "Originality:\nThe paper explores the potential of parallel using coarse and fine hash-grid to replace the general sequential coarse-to-fine structure, demonstrating the effects of experiments. Besides, this paper combines SDF learning with blended radiance field learning with anisotropic spherical Gaussian encoding to distinguish material information.\n\nQuality:\nThe quality of the paper is good, evidenced by detailed experiments and comprehensive comparisons with state-of-the-art methods. \n\nClarity:\nThe paper is well-structured and organized. \n\nSignificance:\nThe good geometry that disambiguates the reflective appearance is helpful in 3D reconstruction. The possible relighting application makes this research meaningful.", "weaknesses": "1. Reference is insufficient: From Lines 130 to 135, the Sec. 2.1 is related to the attempts to improve the reconstructed geometry of Gaussians. Since 2DGS is used to compare, it is no reason to cite some papers focused on doing similar jobs: improving the surface reconstruction of 3DGS, like $\\cite{guedon2023sugar, lyu20243dgsr, chen2023neusg}$.\n\n2. The ablation study of the fused-granularity neural surface is not enough. The ablation study shows the comparison with the sequential coarse-to-fine method, but the technique with only coarse hash-grid and only fine hash-grid should also be demonstrated to prove the observations shown at the beginning of Sec.3.2. It could be better if the training time comparison is also shown in this part.\n\n@article{guedon2023sugar,\n  title={SuGaR: Surface-Aligned Gaussian Splatting for Efficient 3D Mesh Reconstruction and High-Quality Mesh Rendering},\n  author={Gu{\\'e}don, Antoine and Lepetit, Vincent},\n  journal={CVPR},\n  year={2024}\n}\n@article{lyu20243dgsr,\n  title   = {3DGSR: Implicit Surface Reconstruction with 3D Gaussian Splatting},\n  author  = {Xiaoyang Lyu and Yang-Tian Sun and Yi-Hua Huang and Xiuzhe Wu and Ziyi Yang and Yilun Chen and Jiangmiao Pang and Xiaojuan Qi},\n  year    = {2024},\n  journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv: 2404.00409}\n}\n@article{chen2023neusg,\n  title   = {NeuSG: Neural Implicit Surface Reconstruction with 3D Gaussian Splatting Guidance},\n  author  = {Hanlin Chen and Chen Li and Gim Hee Lee},\n  year    = {2023},\n  journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv: 2312.00846}\n}", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "FkIrighiea", "reviewer": "Reviewer_oJzK", "summary": "The paper presents AniSDF, a novel SDF-based method for high-fidelity 3D reconstruction that incorporates fused-granularity neural surfaces and anisotropic spherical Gaussian (ASG) encoding. AniSDF aims to achieve accurate geometry reconstruction and photo-realistic rendering by addressing challenges in neural radiance fields, such as geometry-appearance trade-offs. The approach uses parallel fused-granularity neural surfaces to balance coarse and fine details, and blended radiance fields with ASG encoding for modeling both diffuse and specular appearances. Extensive experiments demonstrate AniSDF's superiority in both geometry reconstruction and novel-view synthesis over prior methods.", "questions": "Questions:\n1. I compared the chamfer distance metric of the Neuralangelo method reproduced on the DTU dataset in the paper, and there is a significant gap. The original paper reported an average of 0.61 (which surpasses your method), while the reproduced result in the paper is 1.07. Could the authors clarify the reasons for this discrepancy? Specifically, did you maintain the same hyperparameter settings as Neuralangelo? Please provide detailed information on your experimental setup.\n2. Section 3.2 of the paper lists some issues related to coarse grid and fine grid training, but there are no corresponding experimental supports for these claims. Regarding the use of the coarse to fine method, you pointed out that thin structures may be discarded in the early training stages. Could you provide visualizations of surface reconstruction at different training stages, along with corresponding quantitative metrics, particularly for Neuralangelo and Neus2? This would help us assess the advantages and disadvantages in the reconstruction of detailed structures. I noticed your experiments in the ablation study, but they do not specify the experimental settings and only show the final results.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 5, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1.\tInnovative Approach: The use of fused-granularity neural surfaces combined with ASG encoding for 3D reconstruction is novel and effective in balancing both coarse and fine details, leading to improved geometry and appearance quality.\n2.\tHigh Performance: Experimental results show significant improvements in rendering quality and geometry reconstruction, with better handling of reflective, luminous, and fuzzy objects compared to existing methods.", "weaknesses": "1.\tLimited Real-Time Capability: AniSDF cannot perform real-time rendering, which limits its applicability in time-sensitive applications such as interactive graphics or augmented reality.\n2.\tComputation Cost: The use of multiple neural networks and high-resolution hash grids could be computationally expensive, which may hinder scalability.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "C7zd8KxlA6", "reviewer": "Reviewer_nbo8", "summary": "The AniSDF paper introduces an innovative approach to high-fidelity surface reconstruction and photo-realistic rendering from multi-view images. This is achieved through a synergistic geometry network and appearance network, which together enable high-quality 3D reconstruction. Additionally, the authors propose a fused-granularity neural surface that aims to balance overall structural integrity with fine detail preservation.", "questions": "It’s unclear whether the larger network or the fused-granularity neural surface structure is responsible. What would happen if we set both the fine and coarse grids to the same resolution, either that of the coarse grid or that of the fine grid?\n\nI raise my ratings. Good Luck.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "Pros:\nThe paper is well-written and generally easy to follow.\nExperimental results demonstrate incremental improvements in PSNR, which support the proposed approach.", "weaknesses": "Cons:\nThe fused-granularity neural surface structure may lack novelty, as it essentially uses two parallel structures with different resolutions. It seems likely that resolution choices could impact the final reconstruction quality. Including experiments that vary resolution settings would clarify their effect. \n\n\nDespite claims of high-quality mesh reconstruction, Chamfer Distance results reveal performance gaps on certain objects (e.g., \"Chair\" and \"Mic\" categories) compared to methods like Neus and NeRO. Explaining these discrepancies would help elucidate the limitations.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Poster)