Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A benchmark for surface reconstruction

Berger, Matthew, Levine, Joshua A., Nonato, Luis Gustavo, Taubin, Gabriel, Silva, Claudio T.·2013·ACM Transactions on Graphics

Abstract

We present a benchmark for the evaluation and comparison of algorithms which reconstruct a surface from point cloud data. Although a substantial amount of effort has been dedicated to the problem of surface reconstruction, a comprehensive means of evaluating this class of algorithms is noticeably absent. We propose a simple pipeline for measuring surface reconstruction algorithms, consisting of three main phases: surface modeling, sampling, and evaluation. We use implicit surfaces for modeling shapes which are capable of representing details of varying size and sharp features. From these implicit surfaces, we produce point clouds by synthetically generating range scans which resemble realistic scan data produced by an optical triangulation scanner. We validate our synthetic sampling scheme by comparing against scan data produced by a commercial optical laser scanner, where we scan a 3D-printed version of the original surface. Last, we perform evaluation by comparing the output reconstructed surface to a dense uniformly distributed sampling of the implicit surface. We decompose our benchmark into two distinct sets of experiments. The first set of experiments measures reconstruction against point clouds of complex shapes sampled under a wide variety of conditions. Although these experiments are quite useful for comparison, they lack a fine-grain analysis. To complement this, the second set of experiments measures specific properties of surface reconstruction, in terms of sampling characteristics and surface features. Together, these experiments depict a detailed examination of the state of surface reconstruction algorithms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2451236.2451246

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 205

Metadata

Authors
Berger, M., Levine, J. A., Nonato, L. G., Taubin, G., & Silva, C. T.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Graphics
Published
2013-04
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
1-17
ISSN
  • 0730-0301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7368
OpenAlex
W1987985833
Cited by
205
References
1
FWCI
14.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A benchmark for surface reconstruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2451236.2451246
The paper
Berger, M., Levine, J. A., Nonato, L. G., Taubin, G., & Silva, C. T. (2013). A benchmark for surface reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics. https://doi.org/10.1145/2451236.2451246

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.