Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Human Mesh Recovery from Monocular Images via a Skeleton-disentangled Representation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Disentangling the skeleton from body details cuts 3D human mesh recovery error by 15.4% on Human3.6M and sets state-of-the-art on in-the-wild 3DPW without fine-tuning.

desk verdict Solid empirical advance in human mesh recovery whose headline numbers hinge on an underspecified test-time batch-normalization protocol, so the verdict is conditional until that is clarified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07172 v2 pith:TVXGO7D5 submitted 2019-08-20 cs.CV

Sun Yu , Ye Yun , Liu Wu , Gao Wenpeng , Fu YiLi , Mei Tao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dhumanmeshrecoveryskeletondisentanglingself-attentiontemporalconvolutionmonocularvideoSMPLposeestimationorder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that 3D human mesh recovery from images and video improves when the network first separates the body's skeleton from its remaining shape and pose details, instead of predicting all SMPL parameters from one entangled feature. It introduces a pluggable DSD module that extracts skeleton coordinates and detailed features in two branches and fuses them with a bilinear transformation, so the skeleton stays cleanly separated. On top of that, a self-attention temporal network (SATN) uses attention before temporal convolutions to capture short- and long-range motion coherence, with an unsupervised adversarial ordering task as extra supervision. The authors report state-of-the-art results: 59.1 mm MPJPE and 42.4 mm PA-MPJPE on Human3.6M, beating prior mesh-prediction methods by 15.4% and 23.8% respectively, and leading PA-MPJPE on 3DPW with no fine-tuning. The central claim is that the skeleton-disentangled representation, not just temporal modeling, is what makes the gains possible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the DSD (disentangling the skeleton from the details) module. It is a two-branch feature extractor: one branch produces 2D/3D skeleton joint coordinates from heatmaps via differentiable integral regression, and the other produces a detailed feature vector; the two are fused by the bilinear transformation $y = x_s A x_d^T$, which the paper uses specifically because bilinear models are known to separate two factors (style and content). The accompanying temporal machinery is the SATN, which inserts a multi-head self-attention layer before a temporal convolution network so that associations between any two frames are established in a single step, and an adversarial sequence-sorting branch that recovers the original order of shuffled frame features as an unsupervised training signal for motion dynamics. The DSD features are what feed both the self-attention and the TCN, and the paper's ablations show that replacing them with backbone features nearly eliminates the temporal gain.

What would settle it

Run the released DSD+SATN model and the HMR-video baseline on Human3.6M and 3DPW with batch-normalization running statistics active at test time (instead of discarding them), and check whether PA-MPJPE stays near 42.4 mm on Human3.6M and still beats HMR-video by double digits; if the margin collapses, the central claim is an artifact of the test-time protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that separating the skeleton from the body's remaining shape and pose details in feature space makes 3D human mesh recovery substantially more accurate, and that this separation is what enables effective temporal modeling. On a single frame, the DSD module replaces direct or concatenated regression by estimating skeleton joint coordinates with differentiable integral regression, extracting a separate detail feature, and fusing them through the bilinear transformation $y = x_s A x_d^T$; this alone brings the Human3.6M PA-MPJPE from HMR's 58.1 mm down to 44.3 mm. Adding the self-attention temporal network and the adversarial order-recovery task improves this further to 42.4 mm PA-MPJPE and 59.1 mm MPJPE, which the paper reports as a 15.4% MPJPE and 23.8% PA-MPJPE improvement over the previous state of the art, with state-of-the-art PA-MPJPE on 3DPW without fine-tuning. The paper's ablations attribute the largest part of the temporal gain to the skeleton-disentangled representation rather than to the temporal architecture alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that evaluating with batch-normalization parameters discarded at test time is a fair protocol; if that protocol helps the proposed model more than it helps the compared baselines, the reported margins over HMR-video and previous methods may overstate the real improvement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pluggable DSD module could be inserted into existing 2D/3D pose estimation networks to turn them into 3D mesh recovery systems, as the paper claims it is portable.
  • Putting self-attention before temporal convolution lets a shallow TCN access long-range frame relationships, so temporal modeling no longer needs many stacked layers to relate distant frames.
  • The adversarial frame-order recovery loss provides temporal supervision without 3D ground-truth labels for motion dynamics, which is useful when annotated video is scarce.
  • If the numbers hold, a model trained only on constrained indoor data (Human3.6M) can outperform a model trained on nearly 20x more internet video (HMR-video-L) on in-the-wild 3DPW, suggesting good representation design can offset data hunger.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the finding suggests that any 3D mesh or pose network could adopt the same two-branch skeleton/detail split, since the DSD module is described as pluggable; a direct test would be inserting it into another mesh network and measuring the gain.
  • The paper leaves batch-normalization statistics out of the evaluation; an editorial check would be rerunning the released model with BN statistics active to see whether the margin over HMR-video is robust.
  • The temporal-order sorting objective is taught with soft Gaussian labels to handle near-identical neighboring frames; the same trick could transfer to other self-supervised sequence tasks where order is ambiguous, though the paper only demonstrates it for mesh recovery.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an end-to-end framework for 3D human mesh recovery from single images and monocular videos. Spatially, a DSD module extracts skeleton and detail features and combines them with a bilinear transformation to produce a disentangled representation. Temporally, the SATN module applies self-attention before a temporal convolutional network and adds an auxiliary sequence-sorting task to supervise motion dynamics. The authors claim state-of-the-art results on Human3.6M and 3DPW, with headline improvements of 15.4% MPJPE and 23.8% PA-MPJPE over prior mesh-recovery methods, and provide ablations supporting the role of the DSD representation.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper offers a simple, pluggable architectural module and a temporal model that improve both accuracy and smoothness of mesh recovery, with released code. The ablation design, especially the comparison of Direct, Concat, and DSD, directly targets the coupling problem and gives a clear way to test the contribution of disentanglement. The temporal-order auxiliary task is a reasonable self-supervised mechanism. No equation-level circularity is apparent in the derivation. However, the main significance depends on the validity of the experimental comparisons, which are currently threatened by an ambiguous test-time batch-normalization protocol and by missing uncertainty measures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2] Section 4.2 states that 'we discard the hyper-parameters of the batch normalization layers during the evaluation' because of the train/test domain gap, but the paper never defines what 'discard' means operationally: whether gamma and beta are set to identity, whether running statistics are ignored, or whether batch statistics are recomputed at test time. It also does not state whether the same protocol is applied to the HMR, HMR-video, HMR-video-L, and STN baselines in Tables 1 and 2. Because batch normalization can materially change predictions and can make results depend on test-batch composition, the headline improvements (15.4% MPJPE, 23.8% PA-MPJPE, and the 3DPW gains) may reflect an asymmetric evaluation protocol rather than a better model. The authors should report results under standard batch-normalization inference for their method and either apply the identical protocol to all baselines or justify why the protocol is method-independent.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The abstract's claim that the method 'outperforms the state-of-the-art 3D human mesh recovery methods by 15.4% MPJPE and 23.8% PA-MPJPE' mixes two different baselines: the 15.4% MPJPE improvement is relative to STN (69.9 to 59.1 in Table 2), while the 23.8% PA-MPJPE improvement is relative to HMR-video-L (55.7 to 42.4). This makes the headline number misleading and prevents a reader from knowing which comparison is being claimed. The abstract and the comparison paragraph should state the reference method for each percentage, or a single consistent baseline should be used.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] All experimental results are single-run numbers with no error bars, seeds, or variance information. This is especially problematic for the central comparisons: the gap between DSD+TCN+Self-attention (59.6/43.4) and DSD+SATN (59.1/42.4) is less than one millimeter in MPJPE, and the claimed advantage over HMR-video-L on 3DPW is about one to three millimeters. Without repeated runs or a statistical test, the reader cannot determine whether these differences are meaningful. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds and clarify how many subjects/sequences are used for each reported number.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The paper says 'from n (n = 5 in Figure 2) frame features' but later describes the sequence sorting module as operating on 'a tuple of 9 shuffled frames' and the receptive field is said to be 9 frames. Please reconcile the notation and the figure.
  2. [Section 3.3] The term 'unsupervised adversarial training strategy' is potentially confusing, because the proposed order-recovery objective is a self-supervised auxiliary loss rather than an adversarial discriminator loss. Consider renaming it to 'self-supervised temporal order recovery' for clarity.
  3. [Section 3.4] The loss L2DJ for supervising the 2D skeleton coordinates in DSD is mentioned in the text but is not included in Equation (5), and its weight is not given. Please make the complete training objective explicit.
  4. [Introduction and Section 4.4] The introduction claims that DSD is 'pluggable' into other 2D/3D pose estimation networks, but the experiments only evaluate DSD in the authors' own architecture by replacing the bilinear aggregation with concatenation. A direct plug-in experiment into an existing public pose network would support the claim.
  5. [Table 1] The column headers 'Train Test val' mix capitalization and the meaning of the 'Train' column is unclear for methods that were not trained on 3DPW. Please clarify whether 'Train' denotes evaluation on the training split or something else.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DSD+SATN is evaluated against external benchmarks and no prediction reduces to an input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: the DSD+SATN framework is trained on external datasets (Human3.6M, MPII, LSP, AICH, Penn Action) and evaluated on held-out test splits of Human3.6M and 3DPW. The mesh parameters are supervised through the losses in Eq. (5)-(7), which relate predictions to ground-truth SMPL parameters, 3D joints, and 2D projections; none of these equations defines the predicted quantity in terms of the reported result. The temporal order-recovery auxiliary task uses the ground-truth frame order as supervision for the sequence sorting module, and its output is not used as the mesh prediction, so it does not smuggle the target into the training signal. The ablation comparisons (Direct, Concat, DSD, DSD+SATN) are genuine architectural ablations trained under the same protocol, not renamings of a fitted parameter. Self-citations appear only in the introduction/related work for action recognition applications (refs. [10, 11, 19, 20, 23]) and are not load-bearing for the mesh-recovery claim. One evaluation concern is stated in Section 4.2: 'we discard the hyper-parameters of the batch normalization layers during the evaluation.' This is a potentially asymmetric test-time protocol relative to baselines and is a correctness/comparability risk, but it is not a circularity: it does not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or author-imported uniqueness constraint was found, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on the SMPL model, a weak-perspective camera, and two architectural assumptions (bilinear disentangling works; temporal-order sorting provides useful supervision). The hand-set loss weights and receptive field are real free parameters that affect the reported accuracy.

free parameters (2)
  • loss weights = wpm=20, wr=0.6, w2d=10, w3d=60
    Hand-set in Section 4.2; they balance SMPL parameter, shape/pose, 2D/3D joint, and discriminator losses. The central results depend on this balance.
  • temporal receptive field = 9 frames
    Set in Section 4.2; the TCN uses a receptive field of 9 frames (equivalent to 45 original frames). Results are sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SMPL provides a fixed differentiable mapping M(beta, theta) to a 6890-vertex mesh with a linear joint regressor P3d
    Used in Section 3.1 to define pose, shape, and joints; the entire loss computation relies on this pre-existing model.
  • domain assumption Weak-perspective camera model is sufficient for projecting 3D joints to 2D for supervision
    Equation (7) in Section 3.4; if perspective distortion matters for the test data, 2D reprojection losses would be miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Bilinear transformation with a learnable tensor A can separate skeleton from detail features without losing task-relevant information
    Core of DSD module (Section 3.2, Eq. 3); the paper's central claim that disentangling helps depends on this architectural assumption.
  • domain assumption Temporal order recovery from shuffled frame features provides a valid self-supervision signal for learning motion dynamics
    Section 3.3; the adversarial sorting loss assumes that order prediction forces the network to encode motion, and that soft labels with forward/backward equivalence are appropriate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human Mesh Recovery from Monocular Images via a Skeleton-disentangled Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVXGO7D5

@misc{pith2026190807172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human Mesh Recovery from Monocular Images via a Skeleton-disentangled Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVXGO7D5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07172}
}
read the original abstract

We describe an end-to-end method for recovering 3D human body mesh from single images and monocular videos. Different from the existing methods try to obtain all the complex 3D pose, shape, and camera parameters from one coupling feature, we propose a skeleton-disentangling based framework, which divides this task into multi-level spatial and temporal granularity in a decoupling manner. In spatial, we propose an effective and pluggable "disentangling the skeleton from the details" (DSD) module. It reduces the complexity and decouples the skeleton, which lays a good foundation for temporal modeling. In temporal, the self-attention based temporal convolution network is proposed to efficiently exploit the short and long-term temporal cues. Furthermore, an unsupervised adversarial training strategy, temporal shuffles and order recovery, is designed to promote the learning of motion dynamics. The proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art 3D human mesh recovery methods by 15.4% MPJPE and 23.8% PA-MPJPE on Human3.6M. State-of-the-art results are also achieved on the 3D pose in the wild (3DPW) dataset without any fine-tuning. Especially, ablation studies demonstrate that skeleton-disentangled representation is crucial for better temporal modeling and generalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07172 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Human 3D mesh recovery from monocular video based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed skeleton-disentangling based self-attention temporal network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Some qualitative results of DSD network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Decoupling effectiveness comparison between DSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CMU graphics lab motion capture database

    work page

  2. [2]

    2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis

    Mykhaylo Andriluka, Leonid Pishchulin, Peter Gehler, and Bernt Schiele. 2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis. In IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun

    Shaojie Bai, J. Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. An em- pirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent net- works for sequence modeling. arXiv:1803.01271, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Keep it smpl: Automatic estimation of 3D human pose and shape from a single image

    Federica Bogo, Angjoo Kanazawa, Christoph Lassner, Peter Gehler, Javier Romero, and Michael J Black. Keep it smpl: Automatic estimation of 3D human pose and shape from a single image. In European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Learning 3d hu- man pose from structure and motion

    Rishabh Dabral, Anurag Mundhada, Uday Kusupati, Safeer Afaque, Abhishek Sharma, and Arjun Jain. Learning 3d hu- man pose from structure and motion. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Towards multi-pose guided virtual try-on network

    Haoye Dong, Xiaodan Liang, Xiaohui Shen, Bochao Wang, Hanjiang Lai, Jia Zhu, Zhiting Hu, and Jian Yin. Towards multi-pose guided virtual try-on network. In IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Flow-navigated warping gan for video virtual try-on

    Haoye Dong, Xiaodan Liang, Xiaohui Shen, Bowen Wu, Bing-Cheng Chen, and Jian Yin. Flow-navigated warping gan for video virtual try-on. In IEEE International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, ICCV, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Self-supervised video representation learn- ing with odd-one-out networks

    Basura Fernando, Hakan Bilen, Efstratios Gavves, and Stephen Gould. Self-supervised video representation learn- ing with odd-one-out networks. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Learning bi- linear models for two-factor problems in vision

    William T Freeman and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Learning bi- linear models for two-factor problems in vision. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    Devnet: A deep event network for mul- timedia event detection and evidence recounting

    Chuang Gan, Naiyan Wang, Yi Yang, Dit-Yan Yeung, and Alex G Hauptmann. Devnet: A deep event network for mul- timedia event detection and evidence recounting. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Recognizing an action using its name: A knowledge-based approach

    Chuang Gan, Yi Yang, Linchao Zhu, Deli Zhao, and Yuet- ing Zhuang. Recognizing an action using its name: A knowledge-based approach. International Journal of Com- puter Vision, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Exploiting temporal information for 3d human pose estimation

    Mir Rayat Imtiaz Hossain and James J Little. Exploiting temporal information for 3d human pose estimation. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Clustered pose and nonlinear appearance models for human pose estimation

    Sam Johnson and Mark Everingham. Clustered pose and nonlinear appearance models for human pose estimation. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Black, David W

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Michael J. Black, David W. Jacobs, and Jitendra Malik. End-to-end recovery of human shape and pose. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Learning 3d human dynamics from video.IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2019

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Jason Zhang, Panna Felsen, and Jitendra Malik. Learning 3d human dynamics from video.IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Unite the peo- ple: Closing the loop between 3d and 2d human representa- tions

    Christoph Lassner, Javier Romero, Martin Kiefel, Federica Bogo, Michael J Black, and Peter V Gehler. Unite the peo- ple: Closing the loop between 3d and 2d human representa- tions. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Unsupervised representation learning by sort- ing sequences

    Hsin-Ying Lee, Jia-Bin Huang, Maneesh Singh, and Ming- Hsuan Yang. Unsupervised representation learning by sort- ing sequences. In IEEE International Conference on Com- puter Vision, ICCV, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    T-c3d: Temporal convolutional 3d network for real- time action recognition

    Kun Liu, Wu Liu, Chuang Gan, Mingkui Tan, and Huadong Ma. T-c3d: Temporal convolutional 3d network for real- time action recognition. In Thirty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Accurate estimation of human body orientation from rgb-d sensors

    Wu Liu, Yongdong Zhang, Sheng Tang, Jinhui Tang, Richang Hong, and Jintao Li. Accurate estimation of human body orientation from rgb-d sensors. IEEE Transactions on cybernetics, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Mosh: Motion and shape capture from sparse markers

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, and Michael J Black. Mosh: Motion and shape capture from sparse markers. ACM Transactions on Graphics, TOG, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi- person linear model. ACM Transactions on Graphics, TOG, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    A progressive search paradigm for the internet of things

    Huadong Ma and Wu Liu. A progressive search paradigm for the internet of things. IEEE MultiMedia, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Julieta Martinez, Rayat Hossain, Javier Romero, and James J. Little. A simple yet effective baseline for 3d hu- man pose estimation. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Shuf- fle and learn: unsupervised learning using temporal order verification

    Ishan Misra, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Martial Hebert. Shuf- fle and learn: unsupervised learning using temporal order verification. In European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape es- timation

    Mohamed Omran, Christoph Lassner, Gerard Pons-Moll, Pe- ter Gehler, and Bernt Schiele. Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape es- timation. In IEEE International Conference on 3D Vision, 3DV, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Learning to estimate 3D human pose and shape from a single color image

    Georgios Pavlakos, Luyang Zhu, Xiaowei Zhou, and Kostas Daniilidis. Learning to estimate 3D human pose and shape from a single color image. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    3d human pose estimation in video with temporal convolutions and semi-supervised training

    Dario Pavllo, Christoph Feichtenhofer, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 3d human pose estimation in video with temporal convolutions and semi-supervised training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11742, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sfv: Reinforcement learning of physical skills from videos

    Xue Bin Peng, Angjoo Kanazawa, Jitendra Malik, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Sfv: Reinforcement learning of physical skills from videos. In ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Technical Papers, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Self- supervised learning of pose embeddings from spatiotempo- ral relations in videos

    Omer Sumer, Tobias Dencker, and Bjorn Ommer. Self- supervised learning of pose embeddings from spatiotempo- ral relations in videos. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Integral human pose regression

    Xiao Sun, Bin Xiao, Fangyin Wei, Shuang Liang, and Yichen Wei. Integral human pose regression. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Self-supervised learning of motion capture

    Hsiao-Yu Tung, Hsiao-Wei Tung, Ersin Yumer, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. Self-supervised learning of motion capture. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS , 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Recovering accurate 3d human pose in the wild using imus and a moving camera

    Timo von Marcard, Roberto Henschel, Michael Black, Bodo Rosenhahn, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Recovering accurate 3d human pose in the wild using imus and a moving camera. In European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Ai challenger: A large-scale dataset for going deeper in image understanding

    Jiahong Wu, He Zheng, Bo Zhao, Yixin Li, Baoming Yan, Rui Liang, Wenjia Wang, Shipei Zhou, Guosen Lin, Yanwei Fu, et al. Ai challenger: A large-scale dataset for going deeper in image understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06475, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Monoperfcap: Human performance capture from monocular video

    Weipeng Xu, Avishek Chatterjee, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, Helge Rhodin, Dushyant Mehta, Hans-Peter Seidel, and Christian Theobalt. Monoperfcap: Human performance capture from monocular video. ACM Transactions on Graphics, TOG , 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Skeleton transformer networks: 3d human pose and skinned mesh from single rgb image

    Yusuke Yoshiyasu, Ryusuke Sagawa, Ko Ayusawa, and Aki- hiko Murai. Skeleton transformer networks: 3d human pose and skinned mesh from single rgb image. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.11328, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    From actemes to action: A strongly-supervised representa- tion for detailed action understanding

    Weiyu Zhang, Menglong Zhu, and Konstantinos G Derpanis. From actemes to action: A strongly-supervised representa- tion for detailed action understanding. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Monocap: Monocular human motion capture using a cnn coupled with a geometric prior

    Xiaowei Zhou, Menglong Zhu, Georgios Pavlakos, Spyri- don Leonardos, Konstantinos G Derpanis, and Kostas Dani- ilidis. Monocap: Monocular human motion capture using a cnn coupled with a geometric prior. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.