OMG: Opacity Matters in Material Modeling with Gaussian Splatting
Silong Yong, Venkata Nagarjun Pudureddiyur Manivannan, Bernhard Kerbl,, Zifu Wan, Simon Stepputtis, Katia Sycara, Yaqi Xie

TL;DR
This paper introduces a novel method that incorporates material-dependent opacity modeling into neural rendering with Gaussian Splatting, leading to more physically accurate inverse rendering results.
Contribution
It develops a neural network-based approach to model opacity dependency on material properties, enhancing physical accuracy in inverse rendering with Gaussian Splatting.
Findings
Significant improvements in novel view synthesis.
Enhanced material property estimation accuracy.
Universal applicability across different Gaussian Splatting baselines.
Abstract
Decomposing geometry, materials and lighting from a set of images, namely inverse rendering, has been a long-standing problem in computer vision and graphics. Recent advances in neural rendering enable photo-realistic and plausible inverse rendering results. The emergence of 3D Gaussian Splatting has boosted it to the next level by showing real-time rendering potentials. An intuitive finding is that the models used for inverse rendering do not take into account the dependency of opacity w.r.t. material properties, namely cross section, as suggested by optics. Therefore, we develop a novel approach that adds this dependency to the modeling itself. Inspired by radiative transfer, we augment the opacity term by introducing a neural network that takes as input material properties to provide modeling of cross section and a physically correct activation function. The gradients for material…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
1. The core idea is pretty simple and straightforward, which I personally enjoyed. The authors have demonstrated the validity of their formulation from multiple perspectives, making the approach theoretically sound and insightful. 2. The proposed formulation leads to improved reconstruction quality across various datasets and methods. 3. This paper is well written and easy to follow. The entire formulation is physically sound and all the theoretical details are explained in an intuitive way for
1. While the reported quantitative metrics indicate improvement, I struggled to notice significant visual differences in the rendered RGB images. The geometric variations are more apparent in some normal renderings. Maybe additional results or visualizations could be provided to better illustrate the quality difference. 2. As mentioned by the authors, the impact of lighting frequency/spectrum is not considered, which could be an interesting future direction to model more complex materials.
I like how this work incorporates a physically-based factor into the existing GS formulation. The additional term required to cover cross section also makes sense, since that should indeed be material-dependent and disentangled from geometry. I also like the interpretations the authors provide, to view their proposed approach from other perspectives. That facilitated understanding and also boosted the reader’s confidence to a certain degree. The method is plug and play, so if working well, it
It’s surprising that this paper shows no result of transparent/translucent objects. I don’t think it suffices for a method designed to handle transparent/tanslucent appearance to show improvements on opaque objects but not on the original objects of interest. Ideally, there should be videos of view synthesis results on translucent objects as evidence to what this paper claims. Assuming this method does handle translucency well, the big question mark in my head then is how the model deals with
1. Good paper writing and analysis. The paper explains its motivation and idea very clearly and intuitively, with mathematical derivations. I like the analysis subsection, which makes the paper's design even more reasonable. 2. Technical contribution and novelty. The paper points out the limitation of existing methods that disentangle opacity from material, and develops a method to add the dependency between opacity and material. I think this is a very meaningful and valuable point of view. 3. T
1. Some designs of the paper requires further explanation. See the "Questions" section for my confusion. 2. Citations. Some suggestions of additional citations: - Huang, Binbin, et al. "2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields." ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers. 2024 - Yariv, Lior, et al. "Volume rendering of neural implicit surfaces." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 4805-4815. - Miller, Bailey, et al. "Objects as volumes: A sto
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsManufacturing Process and Optimization · Computational Geometry and Mesh Generation
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training
