ND-SDF: Learning Normal Deflection Fields for High-Fidelity Indoor Reconstruction

Authors: Ziyu Tang, Weicai Ye, Yifan Wang, Di Huang, Hujun Bao, Tong He, Guofeng Zhang
Primary area: applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities
Keywords: Normal Deflection Fields, High-Fidelity Indoor Reconstruction

Abstract:
Neural implicit reconstruction via volume rendering has demonstrated its effectiveness in recovering dense 3D surfaces. However, it is non-trivial to simultaneously recover meticulous geometry and preserve smoothness across regions with differing characteristics. To address this issue, previous methods typically employ geometric priors, which are often constrained by the performance of the prior models. In this paper, we propose ND-SDF, which learns a Normal Deflection field to represent the angular deviation between the scene normal and the prior normal. Unlike previous methods that uniformly apply geometric priors on all samples, introducing significant bias in accuracy, our proposed normal deflection field dynamically learns and adapts the utilization of samples based on their specific characteristics, thereby improving both the accuracy and effectiveness of the model. Our method not only obtains smooth weakly textured regions such as walls and floors but also preserves the geometric details of complex structures. In addition, we introduce a novel ray sampling strategy based on the deflection angle to facilitate the unbiased rendering process, which significantly improves the quality and accuracy of intricate surfaces, especially on thin structures. Consistent improvements on various challenging datasets demonstrate the superiority of our method.

Decision: accept (spotlight)
Reviewer scores: 8, 8, 8, 6

Reviews and discussion:
<thread>
creation date:
1730021705956

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_m33k

<content>
summary:
This paper introduces ND-SDF and proposes to learn a Normal Deflection field to represent the angular deviation between the scene normal and the normal prior.

The paper also additionally introduces a ray sampling strategy based on the deflection angle to improve the surface quality further. The paper also proposes to use an unbiased function inspired by TUVR.

strengths:
1. The paper writing is easy to follow.

2. The experiment covers lots of different dataset for a comprehensive comparison, like Scannet, TanksandTemples, Scannet++, Replica.

3. The ablation study indicates the effectiveness of the deflection field and adaptive angle prior when compared to its base model.

weaknesses:
Major weakness:

1. Although the dataset included is various, the compared methods are not so much comprehensive(except the Scannet). The quantitative comparison on TanksandTemples, Scannet++, Replica only includes three works in 2022(NeuRIS, MonoSDF, VolSDF) and one work in 2021(Unisurf). This leads to an insufficient experiment. For example, what about the comparison with HelixSurf, TUVR, DebSDF, H2OSDF on TanksandTemples, Scannet++, Replica? The reviewer thinks the comparison without newer baselines is insufficient on TanksandTemples, Scannet++, Replica. Although Table 1 includes most newer baselines, usually only 4 scenes in Scannet are used for indoor scene reconstruction experiments. This is why the reviewer thinks that more quantitative experiments are required here.

Details: The reviewer understands that it's not necessary to run all previous baselines in all datasets. But just place here as an example. Since the unbiased weight technique is used, the reviewer thinks **at least** TUVR(CVPR2023) is a newer baseline that should be included in both the quantitative and qualitative comparisons on TanksandTemples, Scannet++, Replica datasets. (But more comparison with other newer methods will enhance the paper's experiment part.)

2. The qualitative comparison is also insufficient (only compared with older baselines). It's better to include the qualitative comparison with newer baselines in Figure 4, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13.

3. Some works have both pure MLP version and hash grid version (like MonoSDF). The performance and efficiency of different versions have some differences. Since ND-SDF includes instant-NGP in its implementation, it's better to clearly indicate the version to compare within the table. (For example, "MonoSDF(mlp)", "MonoSDF(grid)".)

Minor weakness:

4. For Section 3.4, similar ideas of better ray sampling strategy have been investigated in some previous work. Like edge-aware sampling in EaNeuS[1], GaussianRoom[2], and uncertainty-aware sampling in DebSDF. Please consider adding a brief discussion about these previous methods.

5. In Figure 2, "GT depth" and "GT Normal" should be changed to "depth prior" and "normal prior".

6. The number of selected scenes in each dataset for the experiment has not been reported.

7. The dataset conducted in the ablation study has not been reported.

Reference:

[1] Edge-aware Neural Implicit Surface Reconstruction. Li et al. (ICME 2023)

[2] GaussianRoom: Improving 3D Gaussian Splatting with SDF Guidance and Monocular Cues for Indoor Scene Reconstruction. Xiang et al. (arxiv 2024)

questions:
1. For Figure 3, what about the comparison with unbiased density function in NeuS, TUVR, DebSDF, HF-NeuS[3], and NeuRodin(optional, because NeuRodin is the concurrent work)[4]? These works also propose an unbiased density strategy. (visual comparison is better for good understanding)

2. In Figure 7, The deflection angle map appears to have a higher value at complex structural regions. What's the visual comparison between edge mask(EaNeuS), NCC mask(Equation 6 in NeuRIS), and uncertainty-aware mask(DDPNeRF[5], DebSDF, H2OSDF)?

3. For Equation 12 of this paper, it seems that when $\hat{\mathbf{N}}^d(\mathbf{r})$ and $\hat{\mathbf{N}}(\mathbf{r})$ perfectly fits the prior $\mathbf{N}(\mathbf{r})$, then this loss will become a perfect zero. The reviewer is concerned that this situation that causes zero loss doesn't seem to be in a good state. Is there a more comprehensive explanation about this training objective and why this training objective will work to help solve the concerns above?

4. Does the proposed normal deflection field have some advantages over the normal uncertainty field, like in DebSDF and H2OSDF?

Reference:

[3] HF-NeuS: Improved Surface Reconstruction Using High-Frequency Details. Wang et al. (Neurips 2022)

[4] NeuRodin: A Two-stage Framework for High-Fidelity Neural Surface Reconstruction. Wang et al. (Neurips 2024)

[5] Dense Depth Priors for Neural Radiance Fields from Sparse Input Views. Roessle et al. (CVPR 2022)
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730120558784

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_ehed

<content>
summary:
This paper proposes ND-SDF, which learns a normal deflection field to reduce the significant bias in monocular normal and depth priors. The normal deflection field can be rendered through volume rendering to further guide adaptive prior loss, ray sampling and unbiased rendering. The numerical and visualization results are compelling.

strengths:
1. The inaccuracy and bias are widely existed in monocular depth and normal priors, therefore, the idea of exploring the uncertainty of monocular clues to improve the reconstruction performance is reasonable and valuable.
 2. The normal deflection field is effectively incorporated throughout the training process, enabling rendered deflected normal images to be supervised by estimated normals and adaptively applied in ray sampling, photometric loss, and unbiased rendering.
3. The numerical and visualization results are attractive and impressive, which highly demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
4. The ablation studies are thorough, clearly showcasing the effectiveness of each proposed module.

weaknesses:
1. Lack of citation. A similar approach of learning rotated normals to mitigate the bias between normal priors and ground truth normals was first proposed in NC-SDF[1]. While I know that NC-SDF has not released the source code so it’s difficult to directly compare with it, an appropriate clarification is necessary to distinguish the proposed idea from NC-SDF.
2. Lack of quantitative comparisons with DebSDF. DebSDF also predicts the uncertainty of monocular priors and is able to reconstruct details such as chair legs. The numerical result of DebSDF is included in the table but visual comparison with DebSDF is absent, which is insufficient.

The methodology and experiments in this paper are solid. I like this paper, however, the two major concerns above prevent me from giving a higher score. I am willing to raise my score if the concerns are well addressed.

[1]. Chen Z, Wu X, Zhang Y. NC-SDF: Enhancing Indoor Scene Reconstruction Using Neural SDFs with View-Dependent Normal Compensation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 5155-5165.

questions:
See weakness.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730662144305

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_krgu

<content>
summary:
The paper proposed a method to improve prior normal-guided neural SDF indoor scene reconstruction. Instead of supervising the normal uniformly across the whole domain, the author proposes to use a network to learn the deflect normal and desired adaptive angle prior to loss according to the deviation of the deflect normal to the prior normal. The intuition is that large deviation happens in complex structure areas where the normal prior in general is bad quality.  The author also proposes to use the re-weighted loss on normal, depth, and color rendering.  The experiments show the proposed method performs well qualitatively and quantitatively.

strengths:
1. The paper is well-written and easy to follow. 
2. The normal deflection detection design is under reasonable assumptions and it offers a solution to deal with non-accurate normal prior.  
3. The angle deviation loss design fits the situation. 
4. The author provides complete experiments to show their method's performance. Including comparison with previous work quantitatively and qualitatively and ablation studies to show each module improves the results.

weaknesses:
1. The bad quality normal prior problem seems only solved half. The author reduced the loss weight on the part that the normal prior is not accurate, but not the other half, what to do to improve the method itself performance in these areas.
2. Like the other prior-based methods, the quality of the prior matters. The author assumes smooth area the prior is relatively accurate. 
3. Like the other SDF-based methods, the reconstruction seems to still struggle with the thin structures.  
4. I noticed that in most cases the method outperforms previous methods, but sometimes it creates noise and artifacts.

questions:
1. would it make sense to consider depth maps together to decide if the normal prior is accurate or not? For example, in most complex geometry areas such as thin structure areas, the depth is not continuous, and one may not be able to hope the normal is accurate there. 
2. what is the reason for the artifacts (which I mentioned in weakness 4), is that because without supervision the model struggles to recover the details?
3. to deal with 2, maybe add some smooth loss / geometric preserving loss on these areas that the normal prior is categorized as bad? 
4. I don't see a reason why this method only works indoor, has the author also tried it on outdoor datasets?
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730697194514

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_ewrb

<content>
summary:
This paper presents a pipeline for multi-view 3D reconstruction of indoor scenes. The pipeline is based on recently popular differentiable volume rendering methods using Signed Distance Functions (SDF), such as VolSDF and NeuS. To enhance reconstruction quality in indoor scenes, particularly in textureless regions, the paper introduces monocular priors for additional supervision, inspired by recent works like MonoSDF and NeuRIS.

A core contribution of this paper is the introduction of a normal deflection field, which helps the model identify and correct inaccuracies in reference normal images estimated from monocular models, such as the Omnidata model. Experimental results show that this deflection field aids in reconstructing fine geometric details, such as thin structures.

Additionally, the authors introduce techniques to further improve geometry reconstruction quality, including (1) an adaptive normal loss weight and (2) unbiased volume rendering on thin objects.

The experimental results are promising and include comprehensive ablation studies. Overall, the paper is well-argued and substantiated.

strengths:
- The proposed normal deflection fields, which correct inaccurately estimated normals from normal maps, seem reasonable to me. 
- Table 6 and Figure 5 effectively showcase the contribution of the method's design through comprehensive ablation studies.
- The experimental results demonstrate that this proposed pipeline achieves state-of-the-art reconstruction quality in indoor scenarios.

weaknesses:
- Using unbiased volume rendering for thin structures seems reasonable. However, why not apply this unbiased volume rendering weight uniformly across all regions? The authors mention potential convergence issues with this approach, but it would be helpful if they provided a more in-depth analysis explaining the nature of these convergence issues and offered insights into why they occur.

questions:
- In Line 280, is this a typo on $g(\theta)$? Looks like this is a missing $\Delta$.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1731911270427

thread_type:
official_comment

<thread_object>
creator: authors

<content>
comment:
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' time and effort in reviewing our work. Thanks for raising these valuable questions and comments, as they have motivated us to further validate our findings. We will gladly incorporate all the feedback in the revised version. Here we address some common concerns:
## **Comparisons with newer methods**
> Concerns about insufficient qualitative or quantitative comparison results with latest methods, such as TUVR, DebSDF.

Additionally, we included DebSDF and TUVR for comparison. As TUVR is not open-sourced and was originally tested only on the DTU dataset, we incorporated TUVR's unbiasing function (Eq.15) into the official MonoSDF (Grid) framework to create the TUVR (MonoSDF-Grid) method, hereafter referred to simply as TUVR. The quantitative results are as follows:

On Replica, we directly use the official evaluation results from DebSDF:
|Method|TUVR|DebSDF (MLP)|Ours|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|F-score↑|85.81|88.36|**91.6**|

On ScanNet++, our method also achieves the best results:
|Method|TUVR|DebSDF (Grid)|Ours|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|F-score↑|53.7|69.6|**72.1**|

For the T&T dataset, to our knowledge, DebSDF was evaluated at a 1024 resolution and MonoSDF at 768. To align with DebSDF, we increased the marching cubes resolution from 768 to 1024 and resubmitted it to the official T&T evaluation site. Additionally, we assessed comparative results at a higher resolution of 2048, at which more complex and thin structures are extracted. We indicate the known evaluation resolution after the method name. The results are:
|Method|MonoSDF (Grid) -768|Ours -768|TUVR -1024|DebSDF (Grid) -1024|Ours -1024|DebSDF (Grid) -2048|Ours -2048|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|F-score↑|6.58|**9.35**|8.04|9.6|**14.46**|16.98|**28.96**|

ND-SDF outperforms all baseline methods, especially at higher resolutions, indicating its superior ability to capture finer details and obtain more accurate reconstructions. 

The above experiments also shows that simply using the unbiased TUVR method does not achieve satisfactory reconstruction results. We further visualize the detailed comparison results with DebSDF on ScanNet++ and T&T datasets **in the revised version**; reviewers can refer to Appendix.C for more information.
## **Comparisons on DTU Dataset**
ND-SDF's primary advantage is its capacity to handle scenes with complex layouts, encompassing both richly textured structures and large, smooth, low-textured areas. Generally, introducing blurred priors can reduce reconstruction accuracy, especially for textured objects or outdoor scenes. While our pipeline is not specifically tailored for single objects, we validated it on the DTU dataset without specifically adjusting parameters and reduced training steps from 128,000 to 50,000, yet still achieved promising results:
|Method| Volsdf  |  Neus  | MonoSDF (Grid)  |  Ours |
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|CD↓|0.86|0.84|0.73|**0.66**|

Notably, MonoSDF uses geometric priors only in the early training stages for quick initialization, avoiding potential accuracy loss from incorrect priors. In contrast, our approach consistently applies priors throughout the entire training process.

## **Convergence issue**
> We found that uniformly applying the unbiasing transformation (Eq. 15) can cause convergence issues. To address this, we propose a partial unbiasing strategy, or deflection angle-guided unbiased rendering (Eq. 27). 

This issue has been analyzed in Appendix B.1, where we present both qualitative and quantitative ablation experiments to validate it. Reviewers who may have missed this can refer to the section for details.

We further visualize the inverse variance (1/β) of the SDF-density conversion function (Eq.3) during training and find that, without partial unbiasing, 1/β fails to converge to a relatively high value, indicating inaccurate and blurry surfaces. The variance curves and a thorough analysis are presented **in the revised version**; reviewers can refer to  Appendix B.1 for details.

## **Additional discussions**
> Lack of citation: the difference between ND-SDF and NC-SDF

We clarify that our method is entirely independent of NC-SDF. Although we similarly model an SO(3) residual field to enhance surface reconstruction, our design diverges substantially. NC-SDF employs a two-stage approach, yet struggles with noise in the second stage’s explicit deflection. In contrast, our adaptive prior loss automatically assigns weights based on sample characteristics (Eq.12), removing the need for staged training. Additionally, NC-SDF requires extra boundary information for optimization, reducing robustness and adding hyperparameters. While NC-SDF was tested on datasets with simple layouts like ScanNet and ICL-NUIM, we evaluated our method on more complex indoor scenes, including ScanNet++ and T&T. Extensive experiments confirm our method’s superior generalization in challenging environments, an advantage not observed in NC-SDF.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1732705219753

thread_type:
official_comment

<thread_object>
creator: authors

<content>
title:
*Optional for all reviewers: Update on Supplementary Materials

comment:
## **Supplementary Material update**
We have updated the anonymous homepage of the supplementary materials by replacing all baseline methods for slider interaction visualizations with DebSDF. Additionally, we have included visualizations of textured meshes generated by our method on ScanNet++. Reviewers can download the **updated supplementary materials** for further details.

## **End**
We want to express our sincere gratitude to all the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your insightful suggestions and detailed comments have significantly contributed to the improvement of our work. We truly appreciate your acknowledgment of our contributions. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

Best regards,

Authors
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>


Metareview:
metareview:
The paper presents an approach to multi-view 3D reconstruction of indoor scenes via neural implicit functions and priors from monocular depth and surface estimation. To adaptively balance the influence of priors for reconstructing finer details, the paper proposes to learn a normal deflection field, which models the difference between normals from the prior and those from a pure image-based reconstruction. To make use of the learned field during optimization the paper further proposes losses and a sampling strategy. The efficacy of the proposed techniques is validated in an ablation study and comparisons against the state of the art. The reviewers unanimously recommended to accept the paper and the AC agrees with this assessment.