GL-NeRF: Gauss-Laguerre Quadrature Enables Training-Free NeRF Acceleration

Authors: silong  yong
yaqi  xie
simon  stepputtis
katia  sycara
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-14 02:55:43

Abstract: Volume rendering in neural radiance fields is inherently time-consuming due to the large number of MLP calls on the points sampled per ray. Previous works would address this issue by introducing new neural networks or data structures. In this work, we propose GL-NeRF, a new perspective of computing volume rendering with the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature. GL-NeRF significantly reduces the number of MLP calls needed for volume rendering, introducing no additional data structures or neural networks. The simple formulation makes adopting GL-NeRF in any NeRF model possible. In the paper, we first justify the use of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature and then demonstrate this plug-and-play attribute by implementing it in two different NeRF models. We show that with a minimal drop in performance, GL-NeRF can significantly reduce the number of MLP calls, showing the potential to speed up any NeRF model. Code can be found in project page https://silongyong.github.io/GL-NeRF_project_page/.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs) [27] have shown promising results for synthesizing images from novel views. Plenty of works extend NeRF towards different aspects applicable in the real world (see related works for details). The core component for NeRF's success is volume rendering, which requires approximating an integral by densely sampling points along the ray and evaluating volume density and radiance using neural networks for them. In practice, a dense set of points is evaluated by expensive operations like neural network inferences for a single pixel, which could be redundant. Works have been done to reduce the time needed for rendering images, aiming at providing NeRF with a real-time rendering ability [9, 44, 24, 29, 8] . Despite the promising results shown by these works, they propose different approaches for achieving real-time rendering by introducing new networks, new data structures, etc. Therefore, each individual work requires training from scratch with a specific optimization goal. In this work, we propose a novel lightweight method that could be implemented in any existing NeRF-based models that require volume rendering without further training. In contrast to existing works, our approach introduces no additional representation or neural network and is training-free. We make minimal modifications to the computation of the volume rendering integral, making it rely on much fewer samples.Our approach arises from revisiting the volume rendering integral, the key discovery is that with a simple change of variable, we can turn the integral into a pure exponentially weighted integral of color. This specific form has a Gauss quadrature (i.e. the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature) which best approximates it mathematically. Naturally, we propose to use the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature to directly compute the volume rendering integral, which we call GL-NeRF (Gauss Laguerre-NeRF), leading to much lower computational cost for approximating the integral and therefore lower time and memory usage. Computing the points needed for the integral requires a dense evaluation of per-point density. However, the efficiency for this step can be improved using modern techniques Figure 1 : GL-NeRF method overview. The vanilla volume rendering in NeRF requires uniform sampling in space. This leads to a huge number of computationally heavy MLP calls since we have to assign each point a color value. Our approach, GL-NeRF, significantly reduces the number of points needed for volume rendering and selects points in the most informative area. like factorized tensors [6] . Benefiting from the guarantee of the highest precision Gauss quadrature provides, only a very small number of fixed points could provide comparable results to the heavy and redundant strategy NeRF adopts, leading to free speedup.To verify the use of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature, we conduct an empirical study on the landscape of color function. We also analyze the relationship between our approach and other techniques that aim to reduce the sample points for NeRF. We demonstrate the plug-and-play property of our method by directly incorporating it into vanilla NeRF and TensoRF models that are already trained on NeRF-Synthetic and LLFF datasets. Furthermore, we showcase the drop in time and memory usage as a direct outcome of reducing the computational cost.GL-NeRF provides a different perspective for computing volume rendering and has the potential to be a direct plug-in for existing NeRF-based products. Specifically, our contributions are three-fold. We propose GL-NeRF, a brand new perspective for computing volume rendering with the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature with no additional component introduced. We analyze the validity of using the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature for volume rendering integral and the relationship between our approach and existing sample-efficient NeRFs. We demonstrate that GL-NeRF could be incorporated into any NeRF model without further training. To the best of our knowledge, GL-NeRF is the first method that could be used without training in any NeRF models thanks to the simple formulation. We showcase that GL-NeRF reduces computational cost, time and memory usage while keeping the rendering quality. 
related work: 
 Volume rendering. Volume rendering has been widely used in computer graphics and vision applications [25, 43, 7] . It maps a 3D scene onto 2D images by a weighted integral over the color of the points along the corresponding rays with a function of opacity (volume density) as weight. In practice, the integral is approximated using a finite sum over sampled points along the ray as derived in [25] . Implicit scene models like NeRF [27] , Plenoxels [8] and 3D gaussians [18] and most of their follow-up all adopt this technique as the render pipeline. Since randomly sampling in space for approximating the integral may bring unnecessary information (i.e. sampling in empty space) that may cost extra computation, plenty of works aim to address that by introducing different techniques for better approximation of the component needed for volume rendering integral (i.e. volume density, radiance) [40, 44, 29, 23, 21, 2, 36] . PL-NeRF [40] proposes to use piecewise linear function for approximating the volume density throughout the space, leading to fewer points needed for the "fine" stage sampling proposed by [27] . AutoInt and DIVeR [23, 44] introduce a neural network for approximating the integral of volume density instead of using Monte-Carlo sampling. DONeRF [29] reduces the sampled point needed for computing the integral by introducing a depth oracle neural network that predicts the surface position of the underlying scene and samples the points near the σ = GetVolumeDensity(pos)8:x = -log(T )9: T = T * exp(-σ * ∆t) 17: bg_weight = sum(L w [n :]) 18: ray_color = ray_color + bg_weight * bg_color 19: return ray_color surface, which contributes the most to the visual effect in the images. MCNeRF [13] proposes to use Monte-Carlo rendering and denoising to do sample efficient rendering, but it still introduces a denoiser network that requires per-scene training. Different from these previous works, Our work proposes to use the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature to directly improve the precision of the volume rendering integral itself, introduces no additional neural networks or data structures and remains in the simplest version, leading to its adaptability into any existing work that relies on volume rendering integral.x next = x + ∆t * σ 10: if x < L p [n] and x next ≥ L p [n] then 11: t Laguerre = (L p [n] -x)/(x next -x)NeRFs. Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs) have proved to be a powerful tool for novel view synthesis [27] . It uses a coordinate-based multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to represent the scene and render high-fidelity images from different views. The render is done by pixel-wise volumetric rendering [25] with density and color evaluated using the MLP on hundreds of sampled points along the ray. For modeling high-frequency information in the scene, NeRF uses positional encoding to map the input coordinates onto high-frequency bands. The success of NeRF has triggered an explosive emergence of follow-up works. There are plenty of works focusing on improving or extending the ability of NeRF towards different aspects. Aliasing along xy coordinates has been tackled [3] , unbounded scenes [4, 47, 39, 34] , dynamic scenes [32, 22, 30] and scenes with semantic information [41, 37, 49, 19] have been well explored and demonstrated the potential of implicit scene representation with NeRF. Nonetheless, NeRF requires plenty of time for training and rendering, blocking its way of being used for real-time rendering. The bottleneck of the computation time is the MLP used. There are two main branches of work for extending NeRF towards real-time rendering. The first branch introduces different data structure [46, 9, 14, 33, 8, 6] for scene representation. Another branch, in which our method falls, improves the sample efficiency of the model [20, 29, 31, 38] to accelerate NeRF rendering process. While previous works draw their intuition from the underlying physics perspective and thus need different formulations of the sampling strategy and different neural network architecture for predicting the surface position of the underlying scenes, we propose our method based on a mathematical observation while maintaining the overall pipeline. Benefiting from this, our work could be seamlessly incorporated into any existing NeRF-related works without further training. On the other hand, despite being derived from the mathematical perspective, our method still intuitively satisfies the underlying physical constraints. 
nerf and volume rendering: 
 NeRF [27] is a powerful implicit 3D scene model for novel view synthesis. At the core of its rendering ability is volume rendering. NeRF uses coordinate-based MLP to encode the scene, assigning volume density (opacity) and radiance (color) to spatial points. When used for synthesizing new views, it casts a ray r(t) = o + td through the pixel to be rendered, sample points along the ray and compute volume density and radiance for these points. These values are then aggregated together using Eq.1 to give the color of the pixel.EQUATIONwhereEQUATIONEQUATIONt i represents the sampled position along the ray and δ i = t i+1 -t i is the distance between two nearby sampled points. NeRF uses an MLP to represent volume density σ and color c. The loss function for training NeRF is simply the square error between rendered pixel colors and the corresponding pixel colors over batch of rays R. Variants of NeRF like TensoRF [6] use different representations for volume density and color, but the process of volume rendering remains the same.EQUATIONAn n-point Gauss quadrature [10] is a method for numerical integration that guarantees to yield exact results for integral of polynomials of degree 2n -1 or less, which is the highest possible precision for approximating an integral by quadrature. Intuitively, consider approximating an integral using quadrature as in Eq. 5EQUATIONwhere p(x) is a polynomial of degree 2n -1, w(x) is a weight function and I is the interval for computing the integral. We first give the definition of orthogonality of two polynomials p m (x) and p n (x)EQUATIONwhere p m (x) is of degree m, p n (x) is of degree n and m ̸ = n. we can use long division for p(x)EQUATIONwhere L n (x) is a polynomial of degree n that is orthogonal to any polynomials that have degree less than n (i.e. n degree Legendre polynomial), q(x) and r(x) are both polynomials with degree less than n. ThenEQUATIONSince L n (x) is orthogonal to any polynomials with degree less than n, the first term on the right hand side of Eq. 8 should equal to 0. Since it doesn't contribute to the computation of the integral, we may also neglect it when computing the quadrature. Therefore, we should choose x i that satisfies L n (x i ) = 0 [16] . With this intuition bearing in mind, carefully choosing the weights w i for computing the quadrature would help us precisely calculate Eq. 5 because we have n points to compute the second term on the right hand side of Eq. 8, which is an integral of a polynomial of degree less than n.In general, given a function f (x), Gauss quadrature computes its integral on [-1, 1] usingEQUATIONwhere x i , i = 1, 2, . . . , n corresponds to a root of the orthogonal polynomials on [-1, 1]. This quadrature is called Gauss-Legendre quadrature since the orthogonal polynomials on [-1, 1] with a weight function g(x) = 1 are Legendre polynomials. An n-th degree Legendre polynomial takes the form [35, 15, 17 ]EQUATION)and w i is computed using Eq. 11 as shown in [1] .EQUATION)Figure 2 : Verification on using the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature for volume rendering. We plot the red channel of the color function w.r.t. the ray it corresponds to. The color function remains zero in most of the interval (bottom). We use a 7th-degree polynomial to approximate the non-zero region (top). As can be seen, the color function itself is similar to a polynomial, validating the use of our approach.Gauss-Laguerre quadrature is an extension of Gauss quadrature for approximating integrals following the form ofEQUATION)In this case, the weight function is g(x) = e -x , the integral interval is [0, ∞). x i corresponds to the root of Laguerre polynomialsEQUATIONa class of polynomials that are orthogonal over the interval [0, ∞) with respect to the weight function g(x) = e -x . The weight for computing the quadrature is computed asEQUATION)While the computation for x i and w i is complicated, in practice we can use a look up table to store corresponding x i and w i for a given n. 
gl-nerf: 
 We developed our algorithm based on a simple observation of the integral for volume rendering. Eq. 1 is an approximation to the integralEQUATIONwhereEQUATION4.1 Volume rendering and Gauss-Laguerre quadrature we haveEQUATIONSince σ(r(t)) ≥ 0, x(t) is a monotonically non-decreasing function of t, therefore, x has a unique correspondence with t on increasing intervals. With this observation, we can do a change of variables for Eq. 15 to getEQUATION)As can be seen from Eq. 19, the integral for volume rendering is a weighted integral of c(r(x), d) with the weight function to be g(x) = e -x . We can extend the integral interval fromEQUATIONa pure exponentially weighted integral with respect to the color function, which is of the exact same form as required by the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature.As discussed in Sec. 3, the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature guarantees the highest algebraic precision when computing integral over polynomials. To perform the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature for volume rendering integral calculation, a natural question arises: is the color function a polynomial, or can it be approximated by a polynomial with a satisfactory error rate?To answer this question, we first analytically give out a fundamental theorem, and then empirically approximate the color function with polynomials. Since the pixel color is contributed by points that have a density larger than a threshold (i.e. regions near the surface), we can overlook the points in the empty space and only analyze the remaining part of the color function. In Fig. 2 we plot a representative of how the color function looks like.As can be seen from the figure, it has a major region with values greater than zero while the others remain zero. When approximating the non-zero region with a 7-th degree polynomial, we have a relative error rate lower than 6.5%. While the relative error is not sufficiently low, we argue that we can increase the degree to better approximate it since it's cintinuous by nature. On the other hand, this specific landscape is fluctuated and for most of the cases, the error rate could be smaller than 1%. This suggests that Theorem 4.1 holds in our case, thus the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature can be used for computing the volume rendering integral.Different from NeRF's sampling strategy, the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature enables us to use a deterministic point selection strategy for the color samples. Recall Eq. 17 is the integral variable for Eq. 20. This means if we want to use the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature to approximate Eq. 20, we have to choose points x i that are the root of nth-degree Laguerre polynomials. Since every x i has a corresponding t i following Eq. 17, we can choose t i based on given value of x i , as depicted in Fig. 3 . Specifically, we want the integral Eq. 17 to be equal to the roots of an nth-degree Laguerre polynomial. Fig. 3 Since the points near the surface contribute the most to the final color of the pixel as discussed in [20, 29, 31] , the optimal point selection strategy should choose points near the surface. The volume density, on the other hand, increases remarkably near the surface and remains close to zero at other areas. Therefore, the integral value of it Eq. 17 should also increases significantly near the surface and remains almost unchanged throughout the rest of the space. Therefore, most of the points chosen using GL-NeRF should lie around the surface of the underlying scene. Consider a case when n = 8, we want to choose points t i , i = 1, 2, . . . , 8 such that x(t i ) in Eq. 17 should be equal to the value x i given in the look-up table Tab. 1. Notice that the first few value for x i (say first three) are small so that they could be reached by the integral of volume density near the surface easily. These values have relatively larger weights assigned to them. Evaluating the color of these points using a neural network and summing them up using the weights w i given in Eq. 1 following Eq. 12 would contribute mostly to the pixel color. Notice that even though the last few x i are quite large and may not be reached by Eq. 17 along the ray, their corresponding weights are so small that they almost couldn't affect the final result of the pixel color. Hence, the points selected using GL-NeRF also correspond to the points near the surface, like in previous works [20, 29, 31] that design different neural networks for estimating the surface position, but only without any additional neural networks. Therefore, thanks to the nice property of the Gauss quadrature, ideally we can select the optimal points for computing volume rendering integral if the volume density estimation is oracle. 
experiments: 
 Datasets and evaluation metrics. We evaluate our method on the standard datasets: NeRF-Synthetic and Real Forward Facing Dataset(LLFF) [26] as in [27] with two different models, i.e.Vanilla NeRF [27] , TensoRF [6] and InstantNGP [28] . Since our method is training-free, we conduct render-only experiments with the vanilla volume rendering method and our method. We plot the standard render quality evaluation metrics PSNR, SSIM [42] and LPIPS [48] with respect to the average time needed for rendering one image for each scene in Vanilla NeRF. We also report the metrics with averaged color MLP calls for TensoRF and InstantNGP. For Vanilla NeRF, we use 32 points for our method while the network is trained with more than 100 points. For TensoRF and InstantNGP, the results are produced with 4 MLP calls if not otherwise mentioned. More details can be found in Sec. A.1. We showcase that our method can be used for rendering novel views based on pretrained NeRF without further training. We plotted the quantitative metrics of GL-NeRF and original NeRF for an intuitive comparison in Fig. 4 . It shows that our method achieves comparable results as the original NeRF while requiring less computation, leading to 1.2 to 2 times faster rendering. We also observed a drop in memory usage due to the fewer MLP calls we have. We further implement our method with TensoRF [6] . As can be seen from Tab. 5, our method significantly reduces the number of MLP calls needed for volume rendering while the rendering quality only drops a little. We observe that the minimal drop in the performance has little effect on the quality of the image. Some qualitative comparisons can be found in Fig. 5 . Other than TensoRF, we implement our method on top of InstantNGP [28] to showcase the plug-and-play attribute of our method. Our method performs similarly on Blender dataset to InstantNGP as shown in Tab. 5.The reason why the speed-up in Vanilla NeRF doesn't lead to real-time performance is that it has another heavy neural network for estimating the volume density. While our method needs cheap density estimation, it can be easily achieved by recent efforts in NeRF like factorized tensors [6] . Therefore, reducing the number of color MLP calls needed could lead to real-time performance as shown by previous work [13] . We therefore follow MC-NeRF [13] We further study the effect of sampled points per ray. We conduct experiments using the TensoRF model on the LLFF dataset. We found that 8 points per ray already shows comparable results to the original sampling strategy that uses more than 100 points. Quantitative comparison can be found in Tab. 4. Qualitatively, in Fig. 6 we found that less number of points would lead to blurrier results. Since the points selected using GL-NeRF intuitively correspond to where the surface is, we argue that the blurriness comes from the inherent inaccuracy of piece-wise constant density estimation.While we mainly showcase that GL-NeRF is a general alternative to the sampling strategy for volume rendering at test time, it is also capable of being used for training. We demonstrate this by replacing the fine sample stage in Vanilla NeRF with GL-NeRF and show the result in Tab. 5 and Tab. 9. GL-NeRF is able to produce on-par results with the vanilla sampling strategy but use a much smaller number of points, i.e. 32 for GL-NeRF and more than 100 for vanilla NeRF. 
conclusion: 
 In this paper, we propose GL-NeRF, a novel approach for calculating the volume rendering integral. We show that with a simple change of variable, the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature can be used for computing the volume rendering integral. Thanks to the highest algebraic precision guaranteed by the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature, GL-NeRF significantly reduces the number of MLP calls needed for the volume rendering integral. We justify the use of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature theoretically and empirically and showcase the plug-and-play attribute of GL-NeRF in two different NeRF models. Experiments show the potential of GL-NeRF being used for accelerating any existing NeRF model. We also demonstrate that GL-NeRF can be used for training vanilla NeRF, providing a potential new direction for neural rendering research.Limitations. While GL-NeRF shows promising results in reducing the number of MLP calls needed, it still affects the rendering quality despite the theoretical guarantee of the highest precision. How to improve the performance so that it would meet the theoretical results would be interesting.Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Experimental settings are discussed in Sec. 5 and Sec. A.1.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [No] Justification: Our method is training-free, thus no randomness during test time.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. • The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [NA] Justification: Our work is a foundational research. There is no societal impact of the work performed.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.• The conference expects that many will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper poses no such risks.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: The datasets used in the paper i.e. LLFF and NeRF-Synthetic are properly cited, the codebase we use are properly cited in Sec. 5 and Sec. A.1. The license for these assets are CC-BY 3.0 for the two datasets, and MIT License for the two codebases.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. 
 
 Appendix: Here we introduce the details, give a brief introduction of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature and present our quantitative results on NeRF-Synthetic and LLFF datasets.For Vanilla NeRF, our experiments are conducted based upon NeRF-PyTorch [45] , a reproducible PyTorch implementation of the original NeRF [27] . We implement our method by changing the hierarchical sampling strategy into our point selection method using the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature.We follow the standard setting as done in [27] to train a "coarse" and a "fine" network for evaluation. We use a learning rate of 5 × 10 -4 that exponentially decays to 5 × 10 -5 over the course of optimization. Each scene is trained for 200k iterations using a single NVIDIA RTX 6000 GPU. We use 128 coarse samples and 32 fine samples to test our method. Since the density estimation for "coarse" and "fine" network are not aligned, we test our method using only the "fine" network by first using "coarse" samples to query it for an estimation of density, then use GL-NeRF to select 32 points for final rendering as discussed in Sec. 4.1.2. LLFF scenes are trained and tested with 64 coarse samples and 64 fine samples for baseline method, while NeRF-Synthetic scenes require 128 coarse samples and 64 fine samples. For TensoRF, we directly use the pretrained checkpoints in the folder VM48 provided by the authors. The qualitative results are produced by 4 neural network calls if not otherwise mentioned. For InstantNGP, we build our code on top of the public PyTorch implementation [12] and train it with the default setting. The final results for GL-NeRF are also produced by 4 neural network calls.The Gauss-Laguerre quadrature is an approximation formula for computing integrals over the semiinfinite interval [0, +∞) with the weight function e -x and reads asEQUATIONHere x 0 , x 1 , • • • , x n ∈ [0, +∞) are the zeros of the Laguerre polynomial L n+1 = L n+1 (x) of degree (n + 1):L n+1 (x) = 1 (n + 1)! e x d n+1 dx n+1 (x n+1 e -x ),for n = -1, 0, 1, • • • , and the coefficientsEQUATIONFrom the Leibniz formula, it is easy to see that L n (x) is a polynomial of degree n and the coefficient of x n is (-1) n n! . In particular, we haveL 0 = 1, L 1 = 1 -x, L 2 = 1 2 x 2 -2x + 1, • • • .Theorem A.1. The Laguerre polynomials L n = L n (x) are orthogonal with respect to the weight function e -x , that is,+∞ 0 e -x L n (x)L m (x)dx = 0, n ̸ = m, 1, n = m.Proof. Assume m ≤ n and set g k (x) = x k e -x . From the Leibniz formula it follows that, for j < k, gk (x) is a product of xe -x and a polynomial of degree (k -1) and thereby g (j)k (0) = 0 = g (j)k (+∞) j < k. Thus, we deduce thatEQUATIONBy the Leibniz formula, we havee x g (m) m (x) (n) = n j=0 n! (n -j)!j! (e x ) (n-j) g (m+j) m (x) =e x n j=0 n! (n -j)!j! g (m+j) m (x)and therebyn!m! +∞ 0 e -x L n (x)L m (x)dx =(-1) n n j=0 n! (n -j)!j! +∞ 0 x n g (m+j) m (x)dx = n-m j=0 n!(-1) n+m+j (n -j)!j! +∞ 0 n!x n-m-j (n -m -j)! g m (x)dx = n-m j=0 n!(-1) n+m+j (n -j)!j! +∞ 0 n! (n -m -j)! x n-j e -x dx =(-1) n n-m j=0 n! (n -j)!j! (-1) m+j n!(n -j)! (n -m -j)! =(-1) n+m (n!) 2 (n -m)! n-m j=0 (n -m)! j!(n -m -j)! (-1) j =(-1) n+m (n!) 2 (n -m)! (1 -1) n-m .Here the second equality is similar to that in 23 and the fourth uses +∞ 0x n-j e -x dx = (n -j)!.This completes the proof.The orthogonality of the Laguerre polynomials that the L n (x)'s are linearly independent and L n+1 (x) has (n + 1) distinct zeros x 0 , x 1 , • • • , x n in [0, +∞) [11] . With the zeros, the coefficients w k are chosen so that the following (n + 1)EQUATIONhold for j = 0, 1, • • • , n. This leads to a system of (n+1) linear algebraic equations for the unknowns w k and the corresponding coefficient matrix is the Vandermonde matrix [x j k ] (n+1)×(n+1) . The latter is invertible since the zeros are distinct and therefore the w k 's are uniquely determined. The specific expressions of the w k 's are given in 22 [11] .It is remarkable that all the coefficients w k are non-negative. This important property ensures the stability and convergence of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature [11] . Moreover, we have Theorem A.2. The algebraic precision of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature 21 is (2n + 1) exactly. Namely, "≈" in 21 is "=" if f (x) is a polynomial of degree (2n + 1) and is not "=" if f (x) is a polynomial with degree higher than (2n + 1).Proof. Notice that(n + 1)!L n+1 (x) = (-1) n+1 Π n k=0 (x -x k )is a polynomial of degree (n + 1). Since0 < +∞ 0 e -x L 2 n+1 (x)dx ̸ = 0 = n k=0 w k L 2 n+1 (x k ),the precision is less than 2(n + 1). On the other hand, for any polynomial p = p(x) of degree (2n + 1) there are two polynomials of degree n such that p(x) = q(x)L n+1 (x) + r(x). Notice that q(x) can be written as a linear combination of L 0 (x),L 1 (x), • • • , L n (x). Compute n k=0 w k p(x k ) = n k=0 w k [q(x k )L n+1 (x k ) + r(x k )] = n k=0 w k r(x k ) = +∞ 0 e -x r(x)dx = +∞ 0 e -x [q(x)L n+1 (x) + r(x)]dx = +∞ 0 e -x p(x)dx.Here the third equality is due to 24 (the choice of w k ) and the fourth is due to the orthogonality of L n+1 (x) and q(x) with respect to the weight function. Hence the proof is complete.For further details on the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature and for other Gauss quadratures, the interested reader is referred to the book [11] .Here we present a proof of the well-known Stone-Weierstrass theorem, basically from [5] . We rephrase the theorem here for readability.Theorem A.3. Suppose f = f (x) : [0, 1] → (-∞, ∞) is continuous. Then for any ϵ > 0 there is a polynomial p = p(x) satisfying sup x∈[0,1] |f (x) -p(x)| < ϵ.Namely, polynomials are dense in the Banach space C[0, 1]. Proof. Fix f = f (x) ∈ C[0, 1] and ϵ > 0. Since f = f (x) is continuous on the bounded closed interval [0, 1],it is bounded and uniformly continuous, meaning that there are positive numbers M > 0 and δ = δ(ϵ) > 0 such thatEQUATIONfor any x, y ∈ [0, 1] satisfying |x -y| < δ.With δ fixed, let n ≥ M δ 2 ϵ be a positive integer. Consider the nth-order Bernstein polynomial [5] p Then, for any x ∈ [0, 1], we deduce from ( 25)-( 28) thatEQUATIONEQUATIONEQUATION|f (x) -p(x)| = n k=0 [f (x) -f ( k n )]C k n x k (1 -x) n-k ≤ n k=0 |f (x) -f ( k n )|C k n x k (1 -x) n-k ≤( k:|x-k/n|<δ + k:|x-k/n|≥δ )|f (x) -f ( k n )|C k n x k (1 -x) n-k <( ϵ 2 k:|x-k/n|<δ +2M k:|x-k/n|≥δ )C k n x k (1 -x) n-k ≤ ϵ 2 + 2M k:|x-k/n|≥δ (nx -k) 2 n 2 δ 2 C k n x k (1 -x) n-k ≤ ϵ 2 + 2M n 2 δ 2 n k=0 (nx -k) 2 C k n x k (1 -x) n-k ≤ ϵ 2 + 2M n 2 δ 2 (n 2 x 2 -2nxnx + nx + n(n -1)x 2 ) = ϵ 2 + 2M nδ 2 x(1 -x) ≤ ϵ 2 + ϵ 2 = ϵ.This completes the proof.A. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted. 


Decision: This paper was reviewed by four experts in the field.  Based on the reviewers' feedback, the decision is to recommend the paper for acceptance.  The reviewers did raise some valuable concerns that should be addressed in the final camera-ready version of the paper. The authors are encouraged to make the necessary changes to the best of their ability.    We congratulate the authors on the acceptance of their paper!

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper presents a method for reducing the number of color samples needed for volume rendering in Neural Radiance Fields. The method works by applying Gauss-Laguerre quadrature as a replacement for the importance sampling used by some NeRF methods to reduce the number of calls needed for their fine color MLPs. This approach is shown to yield some efficiency improvements on plain NeRF as well as TensoRF models.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: The main issue with this paper is that the experiments do little to give an idea of how the proposed method would compare to the current state of the art, which has progressed quite significantly beyond the baselines shown here. While it is quite believable that the GL method outperforms the naive hierarchical sampling of the original NeRF, I have significant doubts about that holding when applied to something more recent like the proposal networks from Mip-NeRF 360 and Zip-NeRF.

Given the weak evaluation, I would lean towards rejecting.
questions: questions: It is strange that timings are reported for vanilla NeRF but not TensoRF, which would presumably see a larger gain. Is there a reason for this?

I would suggest that the authors try to show quantifiable improvement on a more recent baseline. If there were a substantial run-time speed up for TensoRF, that would be good, but something lime Mip-NeRF 360 or Zip-NeRF would be even better as that would show how GL compares to another method which tries to draw samples near the surface.
limitations: limitations: It is mentioned, but I think the writing could make it a lot more clear that only the color samples are being reduced, as this significantly affects where the method would actually be expected to provide a speedup. As it is, this is quite easy to miss and could lead to misunderstanding if one does not read the method carefully.

I don't think there are any notable concerns with the paper regarding societal impact.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper focuses on accelerating novel view synthesis using neural radiance fields (NeRF). Unlike previous works that concentrate on designing lightweight networks, this study is motivated by the specific volume rendering formula, which includes a negative exponential term in the integration function. By employing Gauss-Laguerre quadrature, the authors approximate this complex integral operation, thus improving the rendering speed of existing NeRFs. This approach is validated on two backbones: the original NeRF and TensoRF, demonstrating speed improvements ranging from 1.2X to 2X.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: see Questions.
questions: questions: In the experiment, the authors validated the proposed method on two backbones (the original NeRF and the TensoRF). However, neither of these represents the current fastest method. It is suggested to compare the proposed method with Instant NGP, DVGO, or other faster alternatives. Such comparisons could not only better verify the plug-and-play capability but also significantly enhance the impact of the paper.
limitations: limitations: n/a.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper proposes a computational method for volume rendering using Gauss-Laguerre quadrature. In the context of NeRF, volume rendering is performed by evaluating MLPs (or other data structures) at a sequence of query points on a ray and integrating the weighted results. The proposed method reduces the number of evaluations without much performance degradation by computing the integrations using Gauss-Laguerre quadrature. The proposed method has been embedded in vanilla NeRF and TensoRF for validation, and the reviewer reports reductions in computation time and memory usage. The reviewer acknowledges and appreciates the effectiveness of the proposed method and looks forward to future discussions on the generality of the proposed method (other backbones and learning time applications).
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - The proposed method results in dense sampling near the surface, but can it handle translucent objects? Intuitively, there seems to be a correlation between density solidity and rendering quality. It would be desirable to discuss for which scenes the proposed method is effective and for which scenes it is not.
- The effectiveness of the proposed method as an integration method for oracle or trained models is certain. In general, however, volume rendering is used for both training and inference. It would be better to discuss whether the proposed method is specialized for inference or whether it could be used for learning as well.
- We expect the availability of the proposed method to be very broad. If possible, the application of the proposed method to NeRF backbones other than vanilla NeRF and TensoRF could be considered to further demonstrate the generality of the proposed method.
- The correspondence between the plots in Figure 4 is not clear. It would be easier to compare the results if the corresponding scenes of vanilla and the proposed method were connected by a line.
- Small Comment: Related works -> Related work
questions: questions: - Can the proposed method be used for learning? If so, the proposed method could be a very powerful tool. (identical to the description in the Weaknesses section).
- Why are the results for TensoRF not shown in Figure 4?
- The sample points up to 8 are very small compared to the use of more than 100 sample points in vanilla NeRF. Could the performance of vanilla NeRF be exceeded with more sample points? In other words, vanilla NeRF also approximates integration by discretization, and this sampling density is constant. We believe that a comparison of vanilla NeRF and the proposed method in terms of sample points vs. image quality will more convincingly demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
limitations: limitations: - I agree with the limitations described in the conclusion. This reviewer believes that the proposed method contributes to real-time rendering, but it better to be validated to make this claim in the future.
paper_summary: paper_summary: Volume rendering requires numerical integration for estimating output colors. This work proposes using the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature to reduce the number of samples and improve integration accuracy. The paper demonstrates that this method can be a plug-and-play module for any NeRF model. Experimental results show that with a limited drop in performance, the GL-NeRF can significantly reduce the number of ray samples and MLP calls.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The results show a performance drop of about ~2 PSNR, while the speed improvement is not significant.
2.  The motivation is not strong. Most state-of-the-art NeRF approaches use shallow MLPs or even no MLPs, making the evaluation less expensive. Reducing ray samples does not seem to address a core issue in radiance field research.
3. How the points are selected is unclear. The method requires approximating polynomial coefficients and resolving the roots for $x$ However, since $x$ is a highly non-linear function of $t$, finding the samples  $t$ unavoidably requires root finding along the ray, which does not seem to actually improve accuracy or efficiency.
questions: questions: 1. Why use a look-up table? Will this lead to worse performance?
2. Why did the performance not match TensoRF? Would increasing the number of point samples help?
limitations: limitations: The paper mentions that it has a theoretical guarantee of the highest precision. However, there is no evidence that the current precision matches previous works.

Comments: title: Thank You for Your Encouragement and Recognition
We sincerely appreciate your time and valuable feedback
Thank You for Your Recognition and Positive Recommendation
Grateful for Your Recognition and Positive Recommendation
Thank You for Your Encouragement and Recognition
Response by Reviewer PEjS
comment: We are truly encouraged by your recognition of our theoretical contribution. Thank you once again for your insightful feedback, we greatly appreciate your positive recommendation!
I don't think any more clarification is required. I remain a bit skeptical about how broadly applicable the approach is given the need for much faster density evaluation than color, but I recognize the theoretical contribution and improved evaluation. As such I will increase my score to weak accept.
Dear Reviewer GERG,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing valuable feedback. As the discussion period concludes on Tuesday, August 13, please let us know if there are any remaining questions or if further clarifications are needed. We would be more than happy to provide any additional details.

Best Regards,

Authors
We truly value your acknowledgment of our work and your recognition of our responses. Your insightful feedback and favorable recommendation are deeply appreciated.
I appreciate the detailed point-by-point responses from the authors. Especially, the additional results suggest that the proposed method is useful for learning, which is very important result. Although a more detailed verification of the stability of the learning and the dependence on initial values is needed in my opinion, I think this is beyond the scope of the paper.

At this point I have no further questions. Given the content of the rebuttal, my current judgment is to increase the score. I will carefully monitor the progress of other discussions and reevaluate if necessary.
We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work's novelty. We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful feedback and are grateful for your positive recommendation.
Thank you for your response and additional experiments. All of my concerns have been addressed. It is a good exploration by replacing the classical volume rendering with Gauss-Laguerre quadrature.
Your recognition of our novelty is truly encouraging. And thank you again for your insightful feedback. We greatly appreciate your positive recommendation!
Thank you for your explanation. Most of my initial concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and I now recognize the novelty in the proposed method. Although the current approach may seem somewhat limited in its impact, I believe it holds potential for broader applications in other areas. Given these considerations, I would like to raise my score.