Skip to content

Review

strengths

  • In general, the paper is well-written and easy to follow.
  • The proposed method is intuitive and reasonable for practical application.
  • The experimental results demonstrate significant improvement over existing methods.
  • The paper addresses an important research topic on ...

weaknesses

  • Some parts of the paper are difficult to understand, ...

post rebuttal

After reading the other reviews and the rebuttal, I still remain at a reject rating.

Regarding the rebuttal, I appreciate the authors statement regarding additional experiments, evaluations on more scans in the ablation study, mentioning limitations/failure cases and the revision of the text quality. However, the respective revisions need to be checked again as detailed insights have not been provided.

The statements of following "single-view reconstruction" remain misleading as the authors also mention that additional hardware (such as a LiDAR scanner) is required. While the major benefit of the presented technique seems a better usage of depth information in comparison to other approaches, the respective target scenario is not convincingly clarified.

As a result, the current version of the manuscript still needs significant modifications and is not yet ready to publish in my opinion.