Heat Kernel Textures (HKTex) represent surface appearance with intrinsic anisotropic kernels, but evaluate them using 50 global Laplace-Beltrami eigendecompositions and a resident basis of shape [50,V,256]. We study two complementary ways to remove this bottleneck while leaving the trainer, GeodesicOpt, density control, and compositing unchanged. LocalHK exploits the measured locality of trained kernels and replaces spectral evaluation by radius-bounded hinge unfolding and an analytic log-map kernel. On 10 Objaverse meshes and an 8-mesh low-poly holdout, it changes mean view PSNR from 31.35 to 32.00 and from 29.82 to 30.76 dB, respectively, while reducing initialization by 40.5 times and enabling a 749,570-vertex proxy-backed run where the spectral baseline fails. ThermalRF instead preserves the discrete anisotropic heat semigroup: GPU sparse Chebyshev actions and randomized range finding construct global low-rank heat factors without mesh-sized eigenvectors, and a compiled evaluator mixes four neighboring thermal responses. On spot and a thin-stem challenge, ThermalRF reduces end-to-end preprocessing, initialization, and 5,000-step optimization by 29.3% and 24.4%, with every surface, atlas, or view PSNR change within 0.12 dB and training allocation reduced by about 90%. The two routes expose a useful design choice: maximal locality and scale versus fidelity to the thermal PDE. Broader thermal-feature evaluation and real large scenes remain future work.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Why local evaluation is plausible. (a) Contribution-weighted Euclidean footprint radii for 5,000 trained spot kernels. (b) Surface PSNR after hard response truncation; the dotted line marks R=0.2 . (c) Relative distance error against MMP exact geodesics.
Figure 2: LocalHK overview. Face-local hinges develop a center into nearby faces; the development defines log-map coordinates and an anisotropic response with a narrow geodesic window. Supports may live on a simplified proxy while colors are queried on the original mesh.
Distance estimate
Median
p90
p99
Local unfolding
0.03
1.0
6.9
Euclidean chord
1.9
10.8
27.4
Edge-graph Dijkstra
6.9
17.1
32.9
Table 1: Spot geodesic validation against MMP exact distance. Values are relative errors in percent over 8,108 pairs.
Set
Method
View PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Surface PSNR ↑
Main (10)
HKTex
31.35
0.937
0.065
31.68
LocalHK-PF
29.37
0.935
0.072
29.72
LocalHK-PQ
32.00
0.940
0.058
32.39
Holdout (8)
HKTex
29.82
0.947
0.058
29.65
LocalHK-PF
29.92
0.946
0.054
29.62
LocalHK-PQ
30.76
0.954
0.050
30.76
Table 2: Quality under our custom albedo evaluation. PF uses one candidate set per face; PQ selects candidates per query on overflowing faces. Means weight meshes equally.
Figure 3: Per-mesh view PSNR. (a) Final LocalHK-PQ versus HKTex; the dashed line is equality. (b–c) Paired changes for the main and low-poly holdout sets. Mesh identifiers are shortened to eight characters.
Metric
HKTex
LocalHK-PF
LocalHK-PQ
Gain
Initialization (s)
163.75
3.83
4.04
40.5 ×
Median step (ms)
23.76
12.87
15.56
1.53 ×
Optimization (s)
141.83
135.98
143.97
—
Peak train memory (GB)
2.952
0.284
0.359
8.22 ×
Query rate (M points/s)
0.145
3.670
1.443
9.97 ×
Table 3: Main-set efficiency. Gain is HKTex/LocalHK-PQ for time and memory, and LocalHK-PQ/HKTex for throughput. Optimization wall time is not presented as a speedup.
Figure 4: Scaling on midpoint-subdivided spot with 5,000 kernels and 120 steps. Full 50-eigensolve measurements stop at 46,850 vertices; the dashed setup curve extrapolates 49 anisotropic solves from one measured solve. Crosses mark OOM rather than measured values. This experiment uses early V0 LocalHK without the geodesic window or per-query selection.
Mesh
Method
Surface
Atlas
View
Paper
Step (ms)
E2E (s)
Train GB
spot
HKTex
33.859
33.659
32.961
41.978
28.88
222.63
2.599
ThermalRF
33.902
33.542
32.906
41.977
21.54
157.34
0.257
pumpkin
HKTex
37.265
36.844
37.591
41.349
28.97
244.71
2.598
ThermalRF
37.333
36.989
37.607
41.294
21.83
185.11
0.257
Table 4: Thermal-preserving 5,000-step pairs. E2E includes fresh preprocessing, initialization, first-shape compilation, and optimization. Paper is five-frame rotating Mitsuba PSNR.
Setting
Surface PSNR
Change from V0
HKTex reference
33.62
+2.45
LocalHK V0
31.17
0.00
isotropic
23.23
-7.94
Euclidean distance and frame
31.02
-0.15
candidate cap 50→100
30.97
-0.20
rebuild every step
30.91
-0.26
Table 5: Spot surface-PSNR ablation (one mesh, one seed, 5,000 steps). Shape repairs use the radius-0.2 setting; other rows change one V0 component.
Figure 5: Spot view for the kernel-shape investigation. Anisotropic V0 is too broad; optimization changes help, while the geodesic Gaussian window most closely restores sharp boundaries. These are single-seed diagnostic runs.
Vertices
Cand. med.
PF <0.5
Uncapped <0.5
Cap-only
HKTex
LocalHK-PF
LocalHK-PQ
121
2,601
36.5%
1.2%
35.4%
21.49
15.03
24.25
330
1,012
24.6%
1.7%
23.0%
48.11
30.52
48.13
Table 6: Coverage diagnosis and view PSNR on the two coarse meshes. Coverage statistics use the final kernels of a single diagnostic seed; PSNR averages available benchmark seeds.
Figure 6: The low-poly failure is candidate selection rather than support propagation. Per-query selection restores view PSNR (left) by eliminating the large under-covered regions created by the per-face cap (right).
Figure 7: Representative main-set views. Rows show a positive case, the repaired low-poly case, and the remaining pumpkin failure. The last column is LocalHK-PQ error for the first two rows and coverage for the pumpkin (yellow covered, purple uncovered). Labels give paired view-PSNR changes.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Mesh
Vertices
HKTex
LocalHK-PF
LocalHK-PQ
Δ (PQ–HK)
5713fc40
56,434
33.80
34.06
34.04
+0.24
3260106b
330
48.11
30.52
48.13
+0.02
fb155485
11,224
36.82
36.90
36.91
+0.09
ade09b61
4,767
28.05
28.62
28.62
+0.57
753e0a4d
8,138
40.08
44.28
43.64
+3.57
760da98c
16,024
20.81
21.03
21.05
+0.24
Appendix
Table 7: Main benchmark view PSNR by mesh. Values average available seeds.
Mesh
Vertices
HKTex
LocalHK-PF
LocalHK-PQ
Δ (PQ–HK)
289cf2bd
94
32.08
31.50
33.66
+1.58
e7c2ddf2
130
23.96
21.31
25.76
+1.79
61699f9b
162
28.66
29.18
30.22
+1.56
c048d51a
362
37.06
37.30
37.38
+0.32
ce86584f
609
27.76
28.14
28.16
+0.40
cb145eb6
809
25.80
26.26
26.69
+0.89
Appendix
Table 8: Separately selected low-poly holdout view PSNR by mesh. The last mesh has one completed LocalHK-PQ seed and two completed LocalHK-PF seeds; other cells average all available runs.
Mesh
Vertices
Faces
Spectral preprocessing (s)
5713fc40
56,434
112,864
1,052.8
760da98c
16,024
32,044
333.2
841c49dd
15,250
30,282
251.8
fb155485
11,224
22,448
257.9
753e0a4d
8,138
15,976
160.6
ade09b61
4,767
9,530
132.2
Appendix
Table 9: Measured HKTex preprocessing for 50 eigendecompositions on the 10 main meshes. The smallest mesh still pays the fixed 50-solve construction.
Mesh
Init. (s)
Step (ms)
Memory (GB)
Query (M/s)
Optim. (s)
5713fc40
933.04/6.01
23.94/11.93
5.832/0.283
0.126/1.510
149.81/107.20
3260106b
11.76/2.69
23.07/15.40
2.409/0.340
0.098/0.468
145.38/172.08
fb155485
142.54/3.35
24.08/14.30
3.031/0.397
0.125/2.070
143.60/181.30
ade09b61
52.55/3.57
23.81/13.18
2.675/0.458
0.164/1.521
134.64/113.28
753e0a4d
73.05/2.99
24.19/11.92
2.839/0.224
0.127/0.950
143.98/120.99
760da98c
186.36/4.17
24.77/12.31
3.268/0.654
0.122/2.177
158.61/131.04
Appendix
Table 10: Main benchmark efficiency by mesh. Each entry is HKTex/LocalHK-PQ after averaging available seeds. Query rate is in million points/s.