I am trying to write my own path tracer in JavaScript, but I have a problem with the implementation of russian roulette. First, let me describe how my path tracer works.

I have a function called traceRay where I am looking for ray-objects intersections and doing some shading. Shading is divided into direct and indirect illumination. I have a separate function that does Importance Sampling only and it is being called inside traceRay. This function gets Monte Carlo samples count and max recursion depth as parameters, generates sample rays and calls traceRay again (if max recursion depth is not exceeded).

RayTracer.indirectLighting = function(scene, camera, intersectionPoint, normal, options)
  var prob = 0.5;
  var oneOverProb = 1/prob;
  if(Math.random() < prob) return new Vector(0,0,0);

  var diffuse = new Vector(0, 0, 0);
  var specular = new Vector(0, 0, 0);

  if(options.MC_SAMPLES > 0)// && options.MC_DEPTH > 0)
    var basis = createCoordinationSystem(normal);
    var sampleVector, sampleTransformed, mcRay;
    for(var i = 0; i < options.MC_SAMPLES; ++i)
      sampleVector = getCosineWeightedSample(Math.random(), Math.random());
      sampleTransformed = new Vector(sampleVector.x * basis.tangent.x + sampleVector.y * normal.x + sampleVector.z * basis.bitangent.x,
                                 sampleVector.x * basis.tangent.y + sampleVector.y * normal.y + sampleVector.z * basis.bitangent.y,
                                 sampleVector.x * basis.tangent.z + sampleVector.y * normal.z + sampleVector.z * basis.bitangent.z);
      mcRay = new Ray(intersectionPoint.clone().add(sampleTransformed.clone().mul(0.000001)), sampleTransformed);

      diffuse.add(RayTracer.traceRay(mcRay, scene, camera, {
        MC_DEPTH: options.MC_DEPTH - 1,
        MC_SAMPLES: options.MC_SAMPLES,
    diffuse.mul(1 / options.MC_SAMPLES);
  return Vector.add(diffuse, specular).mul(oneOverProb);

RayTracer.traceRay = function(ray, scene, camera, options)
  var color = new Vector(0, 0, 0);
  //Depth test - finding closest object
  var minT = 1e12, currentT;
  var object = null;
  var objectI;
  for(var i = 0; i < scene.objects.length; ++i)
    currentT = scene.objects[i].intersects(ray);
    if(currentT > 0 && currentT < minT)
      objectI = i;
      minT = currentT;
      object = scene.objects[i];

  var emissiveObjects = [];
  for(var i = 0; i < scene.objects.length; ++i)
    if(i == objectI) continue;
    else if(scene.objects[i].isFinite && scene.objects[i].material.emittance.lengthSq() > 0.3)

  if(object == null) return new Vector(0, 0, 0);

  var indirectLighting = new Vector(0, 0, 0);
  var directLighting = new Vector(0, 0, 0);

  var intersectionPoint = ray.getPoint(minT);
  var normal = object.getNormalAt(intersectionPoint);
  var toEye = camera.position.clone().sub(intersectionPoint).normalize();
  var albedo = object.material.color.clone().mul(object.material.diffuseFactor);

  //Direct illumination
  for(var n = 0; n < scene.lights.length; ++n)
    //Searching for objects occluding light
    var shadowRay = scene.lights[n].getShadowRay(intersectionPoint);
    var inShadow = RayTracer.visabilityTest(shadowRay, scene.objects,

      var lighting = scene.lights[n].getLightingInfo(intersectionPoint, normal, toEye);

    lighting.diffuse * lighting.attenuation * scene.lights[n].intensity / Math.PI))

  color.add(Vector.componetesMul(object.material.color, scene.ambient));

  directLighting.add(RayTracer.sampleAreaLights(scene, emissiveObjects, intersectionPoint, normal, options.AREA_LIGHT_SAMPLES));
  indirectLighting = RayTracer.indirectLighting(scene, camera, intersectionPoint, normal, options);

  color.add(object.material.emittance.clone().clamp(0, 1));
  color.add(Vector.componetesMul(directLighting.add(indirectLighting), albedo));

  return color

The problem is that when I remove recursion depth test and add russian roulette to my indirect illumination function I get "Maximum call stack size exceeded" error. Same problem is when I implement roulette in traceRay function. But when I use only one Monte Carlo sample, everything works fine.

My russian roulette algorithm works as follows: at the beginning of a function, I am checking if a pseudo-random number is less then some constant threshold. If so, I am returning black color. In other case, function does what it would do without roulette, but the returned value is divided by the threshold.

So, the question is: how do I implement Russian Roulette properly?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can we see some code for this? It sounds like you function continues recursing when it meets the RR condition so it's probably a coding problem rather than a problem with the algorithm. As a side note, it is possible implement path tracing without needing recursion, GPU implementations rely on this. $\endgroup$
    – PaulHK
    Apr 27 '17 at 4:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you stepped through it in a debugger to see whether the pseudo-random number is being generated the way you think? And that everything else you're doing is happening the way you think? $\endgroup$ Apr 27 '17 at 4:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Unclear wht you're asking" isn't very specific, but I'm closing this question because it can't be answered without the code that produces the error. If you edit your question and make it answerable, it can be reopened. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Hulme
    Apr 27 '17 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry! I've edited my question. $\endgroup$
    – vendrick
    Apr 27 '17 at 14:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ratchetfreak It is, because Russian Roulette algorithm should stop the resursion randomly (to keep the estimator unbiased). As far as I know, I should be like that. $\endgroup$
    – vendrick
    Apr 28 '17 at 17:12

Forking defeats Russian Roulette

A key difference between path tracing and ray tracing is that unlike ray tracing, which can have a branching tree of rays splitting at each intersection, path tracing follows a single path with no recursive branching.

Russian Roulette requires that only one recursive function call be made each time through the function. However, the code currently branches at each function call, so each call triggers several more calls. This prevents the roulette process from killing the recursion. New recursive function calls are being introduced faster than they can be killed off. The problem is similar to a fork bomb, growing exponentially, so that the killing cannot keep up.

The clue that led me to look for this problem was that you said that it works fine when the number of Monte Carlo samples is set to 1. In this case the function is only called once each time, so the recursion can only maintain the same number of rays, not introduce new ones. So there is no forking and when the recursion is killed that is the end of it.

If you want more than one Monte Carlo sample per pixel, you will need to move that loop out of the recursive function so that the number of samples does not grow.

Pseudocode examples

Approach 1


This sends 1 ray that bounces around the scene but does not fork.

Approach 2

    for(var i = 0; i < 10; ++i)

This sends 10 rays that each spawn 10 new rays, giving 100 rays, then 1000, then 10000...

If you want 10 samples per pixel, use the function from approach 1, and call it 10 times. Currently the code uses approach 2, which causes far more than 10 samples per pixel, exploding to arbitrarily large numbers of rays until the stack overflows.

Note that I've simplified the recursive calls in the pseudocode for the sake of explanation, but the same problem presents itself in the real code: traceRay calls indirectLighting once, then indirectLighting calls traceRay multiple times depending on MC_SAMPLES, then each of those calls to traceRay calls indirectLighting again. Each time through this cycle there are MC_SAMPLES times as many calls as the previous time, and Russian Roulette cannot cull enough of these calls to prevent runaway growth.

  • $\begingroup$ I am wondering where it would be better to put the code for Russian Roulette: in traceRay or in the indirectLighting function? $\endgroup$
    – vendrick
    May 5 '17 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ That sounds like a potential new question... $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax
    May 5 '17 at 19:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.