SealD-NeRF: Interactive Pixel-Level Editing for Dynamic Scenes by Neural Radiance Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread adoption of implicit neural representations, especially Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) as detailed by [1], highlights a growing need for editing capabilities in implicit 3D models, essential for tasks like scene post- processing and 3D content creation. Despite previous efforts in NeRF editing, challenges remain due to limitations in editing flexibility and quality. The key issue is developing a neural representation that supports local edits for real-time updates. Current NeRF editing methods, offering pixel-level adjustments or detailed geometry and color modifications, are mostly limited to static scenes. This paper introduces SealD-NeRF, an extension of Seal-3D for pixel-level editing in dynamic settings, specifically targeting the D-NeRF network [2]. It allows for consistent edits across sequences by mapping editing actions to a specific time frame, freezing the deformation network responsible for dynamic scene representation, and using a teacher-student approach to integrate changes. The code and the supplementary video link are available at https://github.com/ZhentaoHuang/SealD-NeRF <https://github.com/ZhentaoHuang/SealD-NeRF> .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".