Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

MVG4D: Image Matrix-Based Multi-View and Motion Generation for 4D Content Creation from a Single Image

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MVG4D claims a single still image can be turned into a flicker-free dynamic 3D scene in about nine minutes by supervising 4D Gaussian Splatting with a generated multi-view image matrix.

desk verdict A plausible single-image-to-4D pipeline whose reported results rest on a circular FVD comparison against its own generated image matrix. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18371 v2 pith:2UDNYN2C submitted 2025-07-24 cs.CV

DongFu Yin , Xiaotian Chen , Fei Richard Yu , Xuanchen Li , Xinhao Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords singleimageto4DcontentGaussianSplattingmulti-viewgenerationdynamicscenereconstructiontemporalconsistencymatrixdiffusionmodelsviewsynthesis
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 claims that a single still image contains enough information to synthesize a temporally coherent, view-consistent dynamic 4D scene, and that the right way to extract it is to generate a dense image matrix of novel views across time and use those synthetic images as the training signal. The authors argue that previous single-image-to-4D methods fail because they supervise motion only from video frames, which gives one viewpoint and no multi-view structure, or from inconsistent novel views that introduce flicker and geometric drift. MVG4D instead generates a video from the input, fine-tunes a multi-view diffusion model on deliberately small camera rotations, aligns those synthesized views back to the input frames, and then optimizes a 3D Gaussian point cloud that a lightweight network deforms over time. If this approach works, a single photograph can produce a moving 3D scene for AR/VR, games, or previsualization in about eight minutes and forty-six seconds on one GPU, with less flicker and sharper structure than prior methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the image matrix: a rectangular grid of images with time along one axis and viewpoint along the other, generated from one input image in two stages. First a video model produces frames that carry the motion; then a fine-tuned multi-view diffusion model, conditioned on relative camera offsets, produces several viewpoints per frame. The paper deliberately keeps the viewpoint offsets small and adds an alignment loss between generated views and their source frames, so the matrix is spatiotemporally consistent. That consistency is what lets a 3D Gaussian point cloud, later deformed by a micro-MLP deformation network, be optimized with plain reconstruction losses instead of relying only on score distillation.

What would settle it

Render the final 4D model at camera poses and timestamps that were withheld from the image matrix and compare against ground-truth multi-view video of the same object; if the novel-pose renderings are blurry, inconsistent, or flicker, the matrix was only teaching the model to match itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that dense synthetic supervision shaped as a matrix—one axis being time, the other being viewpoint—is sufficient to lift a single photograph into a coherent moving 3D scene. MVG4D first runs the input image through a pre-trained video generator to obtain frames, then fine-tunes a viewpoint-conditioned diffusion model to produce several novel views of each frame under deliberately small camera rotations, and it aligns those views to the original frames so the matrix stays consistent. This matrix is used to optimize a 3D Gaussian point cloud, which is then deformed across time by a lightweight network; a reconstruction loss against the matrix plus score-distillation refinement produces the final 4D model. On a standard single GPU the full pipeline completes in about eight minutes and forty-six seconds, and the paper reports that it beats existing single-image-to-4D methods on CLIP similarity, PSNR, FVD, and total generation time, with visibly less flicker and sharper structure.

Load-bearing premise

The generated image matrix is an accurate enough stand-in for real multi-view video that optimizing the 4D model against it yields a correct dynamic scene instead of one that only reproduces the generator's hallucinations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single photograph becomes a usable dynamic asset in under ten minutes on one consumer GPU, making iterative content workflows practical.
  • Artifacts that make prior 4D results unusable—flicker, background holes, and surface tearing during motion—are attacked at the supervision stage rather than patched in rendering.
  • Because the same image matrix supervises both the 3D reconstruction and the 4D deformation, generation cost scales with matrix size, so resolution and temporal length can be traded against speed.
  • The image matrix can serve as a drop-in multi-view-plus-motion data source for other 3D Gaussian Splatting or dynamic radiance field optimizers.
  • The method shifts the bottleneck in 4D generation from the reconstruction optimizer to the quality of the synthetic image matrix itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the image matrix is as accurate as claimed, the first and second stages are separable: any video prior plus any multi-view diffusion prior could be swapped in, turning this into a general recipe for lifting a single image to 4D.
  • The reported PSNR and FVD gains may partly be self-consistency: metrics computed against the same synthetic matrix that trained the model can look excellent even when the underlying geometry is wrong, so a held-out multi-view video benchmark would separate reconstruction accuracy from self-consistency.
  • The same aligned-matrix idea could regularize sparse-view 3D reconstruction, where consistent novel views generated between real observations might fill occluded regions and reduce artifacts.
  • Fine-tuning on small viewpoint offsets likely trades total viewpoint coverage for consistency, so scaling the approach to full 360-degree scenes may require stronger global alignment or a second refinement stage.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MVG4D, a three-stage pipeline that turns a single RGB image into a dynamic 4D scene. Stage 1 (image matrix module) generates a spatiotemporally coherent matrix of novel-view frames by first synthesizing a video from the input and then fine-tuning a multi-view diffusion model to produce consistent views for each video frame. Stage 2 constructs a 3D Gaussian Splatting (3D GS) model from these multi-view images using SDS-based optimization. Stage 3 extends the static 3D GS into a 4D representation via a deformation network, supervised by the generated image matrix and an additional SDS loss. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance on CLIP-I, PSNR, FVD, and time efficiency against baselines such as DreamGaussian4D, Consistent4D, SV4D, and 4Diffusion, and reports a total generation time of 8 minutes 46 seconds on an RTX 4090.

Significance. If the claimed results were supported by a sound, non-circular evaluation, the proposed pipeline would be a practically relevant contribution to single-image 4D content generation, particularly because it combines multi-view synthesis with the efficiency of 4D Gaussian Splatting and reports a substantial speed-up over NeRF-based baselines. The paper also addresses known issues such as background degradation and motion discontinuity in prior 4D GS approaches. However, the significance is currently undermined by a fundamental evaluation problem: the quantitative metrics appear to be computed against the same synthetic image matrix that is used as training supervision, so the reported improvements over baselines may largely reflect self-consistency with a hallucinated target rather than accuracy of the recovered 4D scene. The paper does not provide code, and the implementation details are insufficient to reproduce the method.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and §4.1.2] The evaluation is circular. Equation (3) optimizes the 4D deformation network to minimize the MSE between rendered frames and Iτ_Ref, the image matrix generated in Stage 1. The metric definitions in Section 4.1.2 then compute FVD-F over frames at each view, FVD-Diag over diagonal images of the image matrix, and FV4D by scanning the image matrix in raster order. Thus the reference distribution for FVD is exactly the synthetic target that MVG4D is trained to reproduce, while baselines are scored against the same synthetic target without having been optimized on it. Table 3's large FVD advantage (134–242 vs. 546–1134) and Table 2's PSNR advantage (36.44 vs. 31.61–35.07) therefore largely measure self-consistency, not scene accuracy. The paper must re-evaluate against independent ground truth, e.g., held-out multi-view videos of real or rendered dynamic scenes, and clearly state the reference used for PSNR and FVD.
  2. [§4.1.2 and Tables 2–3] The reference for PSNR in Table 2 is never defined. The text says PSNR evaluates "pixel-level reconstruction fidelity between the generated image and the input image," but Table 2 reports a single number per method, which is inconsistent with a per-image comparison. It is also unclear whether the FVD scores are computed using an FVD model trained on real videos or on the synthetic matrix itself. Without a precise, non-circular reference definition, none of the quantitative superiority claims in Section 4.3 can be verified.
  3. [§4.1.3 and §4.2] Implementation and experimental details are missing. The paper does not state which base video generation model and which multi-view diffusion model are fine-tuned in Section 3.1, nor the fine-tuning dataset size, number of views, camera sampling distribution, learning rates, or number of optimization iterations for the 3D and 4D stages. It also does not report the number of test objects, the number of seeds, or any error bars. Given that the PSNR gap to the closest baseline is only 1.37 dB, statistical significance cannot be assessed from the reported point estimates.
  4. [§3.1 and §4.4] The paper assumes without validation that the synthetic image matrix is a reliable supervisor for geometry and motion. No experiment compares the generated multi-view frames against ground-truth renders of the same object, and the qualitative results in Figures 3 and 4 compare against "reference image" and SVD outputs rather than against captured dynamic scenes. The claimed "geometric fidelity," "temporal consistency," and "visual realism" are therefore not demonstrated; the method could simply be fitting the generator's hallucinated views. The authors should add a validation study on real dynamic scenes or on Objaverse objects with known ground-truth trajectories.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1.1] The sentence "we conducted qualitative and qualitative evaluations" contains a typo; it should read "qualitative and quantitative evaluations."
  2. [§3.3] The text refers to "the proposed method MVG4G"; this should be "MVG4D."
  3. [§3.1] The paper refers to "the pre-trained module" and "a diffusion-based multi-view image generation model" without naming the specific base models. Please cite the video diffusion model and the multi-view diffusion model that are fine-tuned.
  4. [§4.1.2] The bullet list defines "FV4D" as "calculate FVD over all images by scanning them in a bidirectional raster order," but the metric name appears to be a typo for "FVD4D"; please correct for consistency with FVD-F and FVD-Diag.
  5. [Table 4] The method name "Stag4D" should be capitalized as "STAG4D" to match its use elsewhere and in the reference list.
  6. [Figure 3] The caption refers to "the reference image" without specifying what it is; please clarify whether it is the input image, a ground-truth view, or a generated frame from the image matrix.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Core FVD comparison is circular: MVG4D is scored against the same image matrix it is explicitly optimized to reproduce.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eq. (3); Section 4.1.2, FVD metric definitions; Table 3]
    "The mean squared error (MSE) loss is calculated between the image matrix generated in the first stage and the images rendered by the deformed point cloud: LRef = 1/T sum_{tau=1}^{T} || f(phi(S,tau), o_Ref) - I^tau_Ref ||_2^2 (3) ... FVD-Diag: calculate FVD over the diagonal images of the image matrix. FV4D: calculate FVD over all images by scanning them in a bidirectional raster order."

    Equation (3) optimizes the 4D deformation field to minimize the MSE between rendered frames and I^tau_Ref, which is the image matrix synthesized in Section 3.1. The FVD variants in Section 4.1.2 are then defined over that same image matrix: FVD-Diag is computed over its diagonal images and FV4D over all its images in raster order. No captured dynamic ground truth is described as a reference. Therefore MVG4D's low FVD values (Table 3: 134-242 vs 546-1134 for baselines) measure how well it matches its own supervisory target, while baselines are scored against MVG4D's generated matrix. The claimed FVD advantage is partly built into the training objective and does not independently establish 4D accuracy.

full rationale

The central FVD comparison reduces to a self-comparison. The image matrix from Stage 1 is both the supervision target in Eq. (3) and the reference set used by the FVD-Diag and FV4D metrics in Section 4.1.2. Because no independent multi-view dynamic ground truth is reported, low FVD for MVG4D can be obtained by fitting the very matrix that defines the metric, so the SOTA FVD claim is circular by construction. PSNR and CLIP-I are defined only against 'the input image' rather than an independent captured 4D scene, so their discriminative value for dynamic 4D quality is also not established. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations; the circularity is internal to the evaluation protocol. Score 7 because the method components (multi-view generation, 3D reconstruction, 4D GS optimization) and time efficiency have independent content, but the principal quality comparison is forced by the choice of reference.

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

The method imports nearly all generative capability from unnamed pretrained video and multi-view diffusion models. The central contribution is a supervision scheme whose correctness rests on the assumption that synthetic image matrices are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for 4D reconstruction.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The pretrained video generation module produces a temporally coherent single-view video from a still image.
    Section 3.1 says the method 'utilize[s] the pre-trained module to synthesize a video' but does not name the module or give evidence that its motion is correct.
  • domain assumption The fine-tuned multi-view diffusion model can synthesize novel views that are geometrically consistent across viewpoints and aligned across frames.
    Section 3.1 asserts perceptual alignment is enforced during fine-tuning, but no independent consistency check is reported.
  • domain assumption SDS and MSE losses against the generated image matrix are sufficient to produce a faithful dynamic 4D scene.
    Equations (2) and (3) in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 use synthetic images as pseudo-ground truth; accuracy depends on the synthetic images being reliable.
  • domain assumption Objaverse and the reported metrics provide a fair benchmark for single-image to 4D generation.
    Section 4.1 does not specify the test split, number of objects, or the reference videos used for PSNR/FVD.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MVG4D: Image Matrix-Based Multi-View and Motion Generation for 4D Content Creation from a Single Image." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UDNYN2C

@misc{pith2026250718371,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MVG4D: Image Matrix-Based Multi-View and Motion Generation for 4D Content Creation from a Single Image},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UDNYN2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18371}
}
read the original abstract

Advances in generative modeling have significantly enhanced digital content creation, extending from 2D images to complex 3D and 4D scenes. Despite substantial progress, producing high-fidelity and temporally consistent dynamic 4D content remains a challenge. In this paper, we propose MVG4D, a novel framework that generates dynamic 4D content from a single still image by combining multi-view synthesis with 4D Gaussian Splatting (4D GS). At its core, MVG4D employs an image matrix module that synthesizes temporally coherent and spatially diverse multi-view images, providing rich supervisory signals for downstream 3D and 4D reconstruction. These multi-view images are used to optimize a 3D Gaussian point cloud, which is further extended into the temporal domain via a lightweight deformation network. Our method effectively enhances temporal consistency, geometric fidelity, and visual realism, addressing key challenges in motion discontinuity and background degradation that affect prior 4D GS-based methods. Extensive experiments on the Objaverse dataset demonstrate that MVG4D outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in CLIP-I, PSNR, FVD, and time efficiency. Notably, it reduces flickering artifacts and sharpens structural details across views and time, enabling more immersive AR/VR experiences. MVG4D sets a new direction for efficient and controllable 4D generation from minimal inputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18371 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall pipeline of MVG4D. MVG4D is divided into three main stages: The green background part is the Image matrix module, the blue background part is the 3D Gaussian Splatting construction, and the red background part is the 4D content synthesis using 4D Gaussian Splatting. 3.1 Image matrix module To construct a comprehensive and time-aware multi-view image matrix from a single input image I0, we propose a two-s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The learning process of the multi-view image generation model. The input image, along with the target view information, is provided as input to a fine-tuned diffusion model, which then generates the corresponding target image. Due to the use of different relative view parameters for training, the novel-view images generated from each frame It may exhibit inconsistent viewpoint alignments. This inconsistency introduc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual representation of the generated results. In the figure, the rendered images at different timestamps and viewpoints are visually compared with the reference image. Accurate detail rendering and boundary handling are crucial for achieving high-quality dynamic 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detail enlarge comparison diagram. This figure illustrates the comparative per￾formance of the baseline method (SVD) and our proposed method (MVG4D) in terms of detail recovery and boundary treatment. These results show that MVG4D significantly outperforms current stat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of multi-view image generation module on model performance. Under identical input images and frame rates, the best results were achieved by the version fine-tuned along the vertical axis, which exhibited smoother transitions and reduced motion artifacts. In cont…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Do- minik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram Voleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. CoRR, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Hexplane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes

    Ang Cao and Justin Johnson. Hexplane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 130–141, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Stablevideo: Text-driven consistency- aware diffusion video editing

    Wenhao Chai, Xun Guo, Gaoang Wang, and Yan Lu. Stablevideo: Text-driven consistency- aware diffusion video editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 23040–23050, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    3dtopia- xl: Scaling high-quality 3d asset generation via primitive diffusion

    Zhaoxi Chen, Jiaxiang Tang, Yuhao Dong, Ziang Cao, Fangzhou Hong, Yushi Lan, Tengfei Wang, Haozhe Xie, Tong Wu, Shunsuke Saito, Liang Pan, Dahua Lin, and Ziwei Liu. 3dtopia- xl: Scaling high-quality 3d asset generation via primitive diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 26576– 26586,...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Diffusion-sdf: Conditional generative modeling of signed distance functions

    Gene Chou, Yuval Bahat, and Felix Heide. Diffusion-sdf: Conditional generative modeling of signed distance functions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 2262–2272, October 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 13142–13153, June 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Structure and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models

    Patrick Esser, Johnathan Chiu, Parmida Atighehchian, Jonathan Granskog, and Anastasis Germanidis. Structure and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 7346– 7356, October 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels

    Jiemin Fang, Taoran Yi, Xinggang Wang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Qi Tian. Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels. In SIG- GRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers , pages 1–9, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Giacomo Meanti, Frederik Rahbæk Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance. In CVPR, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    V4d: Voxel for 4d novel view synthesis

    Wanshui Gan, Hongbin Xu, Yi Huang, Shifeng Chen, and Naoto Yokoya. V4d: Voxel for 4d novel view synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Get3d: A generative model of high quality 3d textured shapes learned from images

    Jun Gao, Tianchang Shen, Zian Wang, Wenzheng Chen, Kangxue Yin, Daiqing Li, Or Litany, Zan Gojcic, and Sanja Fidler. Get3d: A generative model of high quality 3d textured shapes learned from images. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors,...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d

    Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04400 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Consistent4d: Consistent 360 ° dynamic object generation from monocular video

    Yanqin Jiang, Li Zhang, Jin Gao, Weiming Hu, and Yao Yao. Consistent4d: Consistent 360 ° dynamic object generation from monocular video. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk¨ uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1, 2023. 12

    2023

  7. [15]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, et al. Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Align your gaussians: Text-to-4d with dynamic 3d gaussians and composed diffusion models

    Huan Ling, Seung Wook Kim, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your gaussians: Text-to-4d with dynamic 3d gaussians and composed diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8576–8588, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    One-2-3-45++: Fast single image to 3d objects with consistent multi-view generation and 3d diffusion

    Minghua Liu, Ruoxi Shi, Linghao Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Hansheng Chen, Chong Zeng, Jiayuan Gu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45++: Fast single image to 3d objects with consistent multi-view generation and 3d diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Comp...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tokmakov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl Vondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 9298–9309, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Robust dynamic radiance fields

    Yu-Lun Liu, Chen Gao, Andreas Meuleman, Hung-Yu Tseng, Ayush Saraf, Changil Kim, Yung-Yu Chuang, Johannes Kopf, and Jia-Bin Huang. Robust dynamic radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Syncdreamer: Generating multiview-consistent images from a single-view image

    Yuan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Generating multiview-consistent images from a single-view image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03453, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patter...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Realfusion: 360deg reconstruction of any object from a single image

    Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Iro Laina, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Realfusion: 360deg reconstruction of any object from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 8446–8455, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoor- thi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation

    Jeong Joon Park, Peter Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Dreamgaussian4d: Generative 4d gaussian splatting

    Jiawei Ren, Liang Pan, Jiaxiang Tang, Chi Zhang, Ang Cao, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. Dreamgaussian4d: Generative 4d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17142 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨ orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, and Hao Su. Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110 , 2023

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Text-to-4d dynamic scene generation

    Uriel Singer, Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Oron Ashual, Iurii Makarov, Filippos Kokkinos, Naman Goyal, Andrea Vedaldi, Devi Parikh, Justin Johnson, et al. Text-to-4d dynamic scene generation. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 31915...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Eg4d: Explicit generation of 4d object without score distillation

    Qi Sun, Zhiyang Guo, Ziyu Wan, Jing Nathan Yan, Shengming Yin, Wengang Zhou, Jing Liao, and Houqiang Li. Eg4d: Explicit generation of 4d object without score distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18132 , 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & chal- lenges

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michal- ski, and Sylvain Gelly. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & chal- lenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Sv3d: Novel multi-view synthesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion

    Vikram Voleti, Chun-Han Yao, Mark Boss, Adam Letts, David Pankratz, Dmitry Tochilkin, Christian Laforte, Robin Rombach, and Varun Jampani. Sv3d: Novel multi-view synthesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion. In European Conference on Computer Vi...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Masked space-time hash encoding for efficient dynamic scene reconstruction

    Feng Wang, Zilong Chen, Guokang Wang, Yafei Song, and Huaping Liu. Masked space-time hash encoding for efficient dynamic scene reconstruction. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Glober- son, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

  26. [34]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 20310–20320, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Sv4d: Dy- namic 3d content generation with multi-frame and multi-view consistency

    Yiming Xie, Chun-Han Yao, Vikram Voleti, Huaizu Jiang, and Varun Jampani. Sv4d: Dy- namic 3d content generation with multi-frame and multi-view consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17470, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Stag4d: Spatial-temporal anchored generative 4d gaussians

    Yifei Zeng, Yanqin Jiang, Siyu Zhu, Yuanxun Lu, Youtian Lin, Hao Zhu, Weiming Hu, Xun Cao, and Yao Yao. Stag4d: Spatial-temporal anchored generative 4d gaussians. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 163–179. Springer, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    4dif- fusion: Multi-view video diffusion model for 4d generation

    Haiyu Zhang, Xinyuan Chen, Yaohui Wang, Xihui Liu, Yunhong Wang, and Yu Qiao. 4dif- fusion: Multi-view video diffusion model for 4d generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:15272–15295, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ani- mate124: Animating one image to 4d dynamic scene

    Yuyang Zhao, Zhiwen Yan, Enze Xie, Lanqing Hong, Zhenguo Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Ani- mate124: Animating one image to 4d dynamic scene. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14603 , 2023. 14

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.