High-Resolution and Efficient Neural Dual Contouring for Surface Reconstruction from Point Clouds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a high-resolution and efficient neural dual contouring method for surface reconstruction from point clouds. The authors first reviewed works on neural implicit reconstruction and pointed out their limitations. Then, they presented HRE-NDC, which has a coarse-to-fine network structure, along with feature-preserving down-sampling strategies. Experiments showed the effectiveness of the proposed HRE-NDC, in reducing training time and memory cost and in reconstructing high-quality surfaces. The paper is well written and easy to understand. The paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper，we appreciate your positive feedback on our work and are glad to hear that you found our paper well written and easy to understand.
Best regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper introduces A High-resolution and Efficient Neural Dual Contouring for
Surface Reconstruction from Point Clouds.
Overall, the manuscript summarizes and analyzes representative works on Neural Implicit Representation-based reconstruction, and highlights several important insights.
1. Each acronym should be explained the first time it appears in the text, even if it appeared in the abstract. Check all abbreviations in text: each word should start with capital to explain an abbreviation, All keywords (abbreviations) must be mentioned in the abstract.
2. The article should focus on a short paragraph to introduce what the rest of the paper contents will follow at the end of the Introduction section is missing. This paragraph is important; as it can enable the readers to understand what the following content will be and arouse their interest to continue reading the paper.
3. Need clarity in introduction and related work sections- the ambiguity has been found.
4. Redraft all the titles and contents appropriately – Figure titles to be more precise rather than a paragraph at different sections, for ex: fig 1.
5. Section 3.1 to be clear while discussing the cubic features of the grid in terms of equation numbers to understand the concepts and is fuzzy.
6. The experimental results can be more organized to validate the theoretical ideas – Need a clarity in this section also.
7. It is required to have the latest citations at least to be included under literature survey to justify the results been compared to the current results.
8. Further, as per the article contents there still exists revision in English grammar and word choice as used- use of we at multiple sections.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our paper, we appreciate your positive feedback on our work and your valuable comments and suggestions for improvement.
We have carefully addressed your comments and made the following revisions to our manuscript:
Comment 1：Each acronym should be explained the first time it appears in the text, even if it appeared in the abstract. Check all abbreviations in text: each word should start with capital to explain an abbreviation, All keywords (abbreviations) must be mentioned in the abstract.
Response 1：Thank you for this comment. We have checked and corrected all the acronyms in the entire text, and modified the abstract and keywords accordingly.
Comment 2：The article should focus on a short paragraph to introduce what the rest of the paper contents will follow at the end of the Introduction section is missing. This paragraph is important; as it can enable the readers to understand what the following content will be and arouse their interest to continue reading the paper.
Response 2：Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a short paragraph at the end of the Introduction section to introduce the contents that will follow. We appreciate your feedback and believe that this addition will help readers to better understand the following contents.
Comment 3：Need clarity in introduction and related work sections- the ambiguity has been found.
Response 3：Thank you for this comment. We have revised the Introduction and Related Work sections to provide more clarity and eliminate any ambiguity as much as possible. We appreciate your feedback and hope that our revisions address your concerns.
Comment 4：Redraft all the titles and contents appropriately – Figure titles to be more precise rather than a paragraph at different sections, for ex: fig 1.
Response 4：Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have rewritten the titles of several relevant figures to ensure that they are concise, clear and appropriately convey the content of each figure.
Comment 5：Section 3.1 to be clear while discussing the cubic features of the grid in terms of equation numbers to understand the concepts and is fuzzy.
Response 5：Thank you for your comment. We apologize for any confusion caused by the description in section 3.1, and we appreciate your feedback. We have rewritten this section to make it as clear and concise as possible, we hope that our revisions improve the readability of this section.
Comment 6：The experimental results can be more organized to validate the theoretical ideas – Need a clarity in this section also.
& Comment 7：It is required to have the latest citations at least to be included under literature survey to justify the results been compared to the current results.
Response 6&7：Thank you for your comments regarding the experimental results. We have carefully reviewed and reorganized the experimental results section to better validate the theoretical ideas, and we have made the necessary modifications to improve the clarity and readability of this section. In addition, we have revised the related work section to ensure that the latest relevant works are included and cited appropriately.
Comment 8：Further, as per the article contents there still exists revision in English grammar and word choice as used- use of we at multiple sections.
Response 8: Thank you for your feedback regarding the grammar and word choice used in our article. We have carefully reviewed and revised the text to improve the overall language quality and minimize any casual or informal expressions.
Once again, we are grateful for your comments and suggestions, and we hope that our revised manuscript will meet your expectations.
Best regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, many thanks for this really good article which puts the topic into perspective and provides a lot of example. I really appreciated that you did not go into too much details regarding the state of the art but only focused on the main points. The presentation could be slightly improved with thicker lines to highlight more the differences. The conclusion opens new perspective and is fair with regard to the (small) weakness of your method. There are a few typos that can be corrected easily. I just could not understand the differences in L238 goal versus aim. Please clarify before publishing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our paper, we appreciate your positive feedback on our work and your valuable comments and suggestions for improvement.
We have carefully reviewed the paper and made necessary revisions to address the typos and language issues. We also appreciate your suggestion regarding the presentation of the results, and we will consider your feedback to improve the readability of our paper.
Regarding the confusion you mentioned about L238 in our article, we apologize for the mistake and have revised the description to address this issue. We hope that the revised manuscript will address your concerns.
Once again, we are grateful for your comments and suggestions, and we hope that our revised manuscript will meet your expectations.
Best regards,
Authors
