Neural Fields in Visual Computing and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advances in machine learning have led to increased interest in solving visual computing problems using methods that employ coordinate‐based neural networks. These methods, which we call neural fields , parameterize physical properties of scenes or objects across space and time. They have seen widespread success in problems such as 3D shape and image synthesis, animation of human bodies, 3D reconstruction, and pose estimation. Rapid progress has led to numerous papers, but a consolidation of the discovered knowledge has not yet emerged. We provide context, mathematical grounding, and a review of over 250 papers in the literature on neural fields. In Part I , we focus on neural field techniques by identifying common components of neural field methods, including different conditioning, representation, forward map, architecture, and manipulation methods. In Part II , we focus on applications of neural fields to different problems in visual computing, and beyond (e.g., robotics, audio). Our review shows the breadth of topics already covered in visual computing, both historically and in current incarnations, and highlights the improved quality, flexibility, and capability brought by neural field methods. Finally, we present a companion website that acts as a living database that can be continually updated by the community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".