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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Comparison and Evaluation of Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction Algorithms
Seitz, S. M., Curless, B., Diebel, J., Scharstein, D., & Szeliski, R. (2006) · 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Volume 1 (CVPR'06) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2006.19 · Cited by 2,457
Cited by
PUFA-GAN: A Frequency-Aware Generative Adversarial Network for 3D Point Cloud Upsampling
Liu, H., Yuan, H., Hou, J., Hamzaoui, R., & Gao, W. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2022.3222918 · Cited by 339
LiDAR Point Clouds to 3-D Urban Models$:$ A Review
Wang, R., Peethambaran, J., & Chen, D. (2018) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2017.2781132 · Cited by 319
Patch-Based Progressive 3D Point Set Upsampling
Yifan, W., Wu, S., Huang, H., Cohen-Or, D., & Sorkine-Hornung, O. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00611 · Cited by 317
EC-Net: An Edge-Aware Point Set Consolidation Network
Yu, L., Li, X., Fu, C.-W., Cohen-Or, D., & Heng, P.-A. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_24 · Cited by 300
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.