Weight Space Representation Learning on Diverse NeRF Architectures
Francesco Ballerini, Pierluigi Zama Ramirez, Luigi Di Stefano, Samuele Salti

TL;DR
This paper introduces a novel framework that learns a unified, architecture-agnostic representation of diverse NeRF models using a graph meta-network and contrastive learning, enabling inference on unseen architectures.
Contribution
It is the first to process and perform inference on diverse NeRF architectures with a single framework, including hash table-based models, using unsupervised contrastive learning.
Findings
Robust performance across 13 diverse NeRF architectures
Effective on classification, retrieval, and language tasks
Outperforms architecture-specific frameworks in generalization
Abstract
Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs) have emerged as a groundbreaking paradigm for representing 3D objects and scenes by encoding shape and appearance information into the weights of a neural network. Recent studies have demonstrated that these weights can be used as input for frameworks designed to address deep learning tasks; however, such frameworks require NeRFs to adhere to a specific, predefined architecture. In this paper, we introduce the first framework capable of processing NeRFs with diverse architectures and performing inference on architectures unseen at training time. We achieve this by training a Graph Meta-Network within an unsupervised representation learning framework, and show that a contrastive objective is conducive to obtaining an architecture-agnostic latent space. In experiments conducted across 13 NeRF architectures belonging to three families (MLPs, tri-planes, and,…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- The paper tackles an underexplored problem: processing NeRFs directly in weight space across heterogeneous architectures. Prior art (nf2vec; tri-plane-specific encoders) is bound to a single architecture; this work demonstrates a unified encoder that also handles hash-table NeRFs - The study spans 13 variants across three families, with both single- and multi-architecture training, and evaluates seen vs. unseen configurations. Results include detailed classification tables and retrieval - A
- Most training/evaluation is on synthetic datasets (ShapeNetRender), with generalization probed only via limited Objaverse tests. It remains unclear how robust the encoder is to real-world NeRFs (capture noise, exposure variation, backgrounds) or to tasks where material/lighting realism matters. A larger cross-dataset study (e.g., forward-train on Objaverse; test on different captured NeRF sets) would strengthen claims. - The paper focuses on classification and retrieval. These are important,
1. This paper is well-written. 2. It focuses on a commonly overlooked problem regarding downstream tasks on trained NeRFs. 3. The proposed framework can handle various NeRF-related models, especially multi-resolution hash tables.
1. The paper needs to provide a sufficient description of experimental details, such as training and testing datasets, as well as benchmarks. 2. The paper claims to be able to classify different NeRF architectures, but all experiments focus on object-centric NeRFs, lacking discussion of scene-based models. 3. Due to incomplete experimental details, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness and generalizability of the proposed method. 4. The experimental section lacks discussion of some hyper
1. The paper is well written, the explanations are thorough, and the figures are clear. The equations (for the loss) are clearly written. And the figures demonstrating the graph representation (of MLP, triplane and hashtable), though do require background reading, but is understandable once with the proper context. 2. Supporting the MLP, triplane and hash table-based NeRFs cover most of the NeRF representation, if not all. This makes it a relatively general method for its own purpose. 3. Both th
1. All of the losses and the encoder/decoder (GMN/nf2vec) used in this work are existing components. Making the novelty in those domains minimal (though the author didn't claim particular novelty in that domain and faithfully discussed the original works). 2. The authors discussed its application to hash table. However, I have particular concern for this, both in terms of the novelty and soundness. Which I describe further in the question. 3. The results are mostly compared within the works' own
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Neural Networks · Neural Networks and Applications · Graph Theory and Algorithms
