MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407131389 · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00394

Radiant Foam: Real-Time Differentiable Ray Tracing

2025· preprint· en· W4407131389 on OpenAlexaff
Shrisudhan Govindarajan, Daniel Rebain, Kwang Moo Yi, Andrea Tagliasacchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiative Heat Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferentiable functionTracingRay tracing (physics)Distributed ray tracingComputer scienceMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisOpticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on differentiable scene representations is consistently moving towards more efficient, real-time models. Recently, this has led to the popularization of splatting methods, which eschew the traditional ray-based rendering of radiance fields in favor of rasterization. This has yielded a significant improvement in rendering speeds due to the efficiency of rasterization algorithms and hardware, but has come at a cost: the approximations that make rasterization efficient also make implementation of light transport phenomena like reflection and refraction much more difficult. We propose a novel scene representation which avoids these approximations, but keeps the efficiency and reconstruction quality of splatting by leveraging a decades-old efficient volumetric mesh ray tracing algorithm which has been largely overlooked in recent computer vision research. The resulting model, which we name Radiant Foam, achieves rendering speed and quality comparable to Gaussian Splatting, without the constraints of rasterization. Unlike ray traced Gaussian models that use hardware ray tracing acceleration, our method requires no special hardware or APIs beyond the standard features of a programmable GPU.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiative Heat Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207