Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

VoluMe -- Authentic 3D Video Calls from Live Gaussian Splat Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VoluMe turns a plain webcam feed into live, frame-faithful 3D reconstructions of a person.

desk verdict A credible, well-engineered live 3D reconstruction system for people, with honest limitations; the synthetic-to-real gap is the main unresolved risk, so it deserves a serious referee but not a rubber stamp. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21311 v1 pith:745O4FYA submitted 2025-07-28 cs.CV cs.GR

Martin de La Gorce , Charlie Hewitt , Tibor Takacs , Robert Gerdisch , Zafiirah Hosenie , Givi Meishvili , Marek Kowalski , Thomas J. Cashman
show 1 more author
Antonio Criminisi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords 3DGaussiansplattingsingle-viewreconstructionreal-timevideoconferencingauthentictemporalstabilitysynthetictrainingdatanovelviewsynthesismonocularvideo
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

The paper tries to establish that a single 2D webcam image is enough to predict, in real time, a 3D Gaussian reconstruction of a person that is authentic: rendering it back to the camera's viewpoint reproduces the current frame, including glasses, hair, and accessories, while novel views remain realistic. This matters because existing 3D conferencing either needs multi-camera hardware, a pre-enrolled avatar of fixed appearance, or the latent space of a generative model, none of which suits everyday video calls. The authors claim their method is the first to satisfy authenticity, realism, liveness, and temporal stability together, and they demonstrate a roughly 30 FPS two-person call on a laptop with only a standard RGB camera and screen. Everything is learned from 20,000 synthetic subjects, with the bet that the feed-forward network transfers to real webcam images.

What carries the argument

The carrier is the splatter image: a lightweight U-Net that maps a face-region image directly to a per-pixel set of 3D Gaussians, rendered with differentiable Gaussian splatting. Four additions carry the argument: a homography-warped region-of-interest camera so faces near image borders are seen with a symmetric frustum; a train-time scale correction that resolves depth ambiguity using synthetic ground truth; two Gaussians per pixel, one encoding coarse geometry and one capturing high-frequency details and disconnected structures like glasses; and a jitter loss that penalizes render differences between perturbed duplicates of each training sample. Direct colour sampling after Gaussian reprojection lets the shallow network retain texture detail.

What would settle it

Take a webcam video of a person with face paint or a hand held near the face, run the trained model, and compare the render back to the input viewpoint against the actual recorded frame: if the render inserts glasses-like structures or blurs the hand into incoherent geometry, the authenticity claim fails. A quantitative version would measure input-view LPIPS and PSNR on a diverse real-capture set with simultaneous ground-truth frames, looking for systematic gaps versus the synthetic evaluation numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that direct, per-frame prediction of 3D Gaussian splats from monocular video can deliver videoconferencing-grade reconstruction: each frame independently produces a 3D representation that faithfully matches the input view and extrapolates plausibly up to about 40 degrees of viewpoint change, without enrolment or generative-model inversion. The authors report top or near-top scores on PSNR, LPIPS, and identity preservation on the two benchmark suites, improved temporal-jitter metrics, and input-view reconstruction that surpasses a recent real-time portrait method on LPIPS and SSIM while also handling details such as glasses frames that escape the latent space of generative-model approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The method bets that a network trained only on synthetic people will transfer to arbitrary real webcam appearances and angles without fine-tuning; if common real inputs fall outside the synthetic distribution, authenticity and realism degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standard webcam plus GPU suffices for live volumetric calls at roughly 30 FPS, with a 2D screen creating a motion-parallax 'magic window' effect.
  • No enrolment step is needed: appearance is rebuilt every frame, so the reconstruction adapts instantly to new haircuts, glasses, lighting, or expressions.
  • Because the output is tied to the input by skip connections and direct colour sampling, the network can generalize to real images despite synthetic-only training.
  • The approach captures disconnected thin structures such as glasses frames and fills occluded face regions behind them.
  • Novel-view quality is demonstrated up to 40 degrees from frontal, matching the capture envelope of high-end telepresence systems without their hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same feed-forward design could extend beyond heads to full-body or scene reconstruction if corresponding multi-view synthetic training data is generated, since the machinery is not face-specific.
  • A distilled or quantized version of the small U-Net might push the pipeline onto laptops without discrete GPUs, directly testing the commodity-hardware promise.
  • The synthetic-data pipeline gives a controlled fairness dial: expanding it to underrepresented appearances, hands, and props should directly reduce the failure modes the paper shows, an intervention that is harder with real-data training.
  • Input-view reconstruction error could be adopted as a standard 'authenticity' metric for avatar-free conferencing systems, separating faithfulness from sheer realism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. VoluMe proposes a feed-forward U-Net that predicts 3D Gaussian splat reconstructions of a person's head from a single monocular webcam frame, trained with multi-view supervision on 20,000 synthetic subjects generated with the Hewitt et al. pipeline. The paper introduces several architectural ingredients: a homography-based ROI camera, multiple Gaussians per pixel, optimizable output channels, direct colour sampling from the input image, and a jitter loss for temporal stability. It claims authenticity (input-view fidelity), realism, liveness (28 FPS on an NVIDIA 4090 Mobile GPU), and stability, and reports state-of-the-art quantitative results on Cafca and Ava-256 novel-view rendering and FFHQ input-view reconstruction, together with a live 3D video-call prototype.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is an important step toward accessible volumetric video calls: it would show that a lightweight feed-forward network can predict human Gaussian splats in real time without enrolment and with direct fidelity to the input video. The paper's strengths include careful architecture reasoning, a large synthetic training pipeline, explicit depth rescaling during training, a dedicated stability loss, and a live system demonstration. The authors are also candid about limitations. However, the central generalization claim from synthetic-only training to arbitrary real webcam users is currently supported mainly by qualitative examples and by real-data evaluations that use clean backgrounds, ground-truth cameras, and ground-truth masks; the quantitative state-of-the-art claims are weakened by re-implemented metrics and missing error bars.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Sec. 4.1, Appendix A] The paper's headline claim is that the method works for arbitrary real webcam users, but the only quantitative real-data evaluation (Ava-256, Appendix A) removes the difficult parts of the live setting: ground-truth masks replace the background with white, ground-truth cameras and landmark-aligned crops are used, so automatic face detection, ROI extraction, segmentation, and background handling are not tested. The in-the-wild evidence is qualitative (Figs. 1 and 10), and Sec. 4.3 and Fig. 11 list failures on hands, props, face paint, extreme angles, and segmentation, all of which are common in video calls. I recommend a quantitative end-to-end evaluation on unconstrained webcam captures, or at least a systematic real-image generalization study, before the "anyone" claim can be supported.
  2. [Appendix A, Tables 1-4] Appendix A states that the evaluation code for the FaceLift protocol was not available and was re-implemented with expected discrepancies in alignment and cropping "which can have a large impact on the metrics." None of Tables 1-4 report error bars or statistical significance, and several differences to the second-best method are small (e.g., Table 2, PSNR 19.11 vs. 18.49 and DreamSim 0.0715 vs. 0.0725; Table 1, DreamSim 0.0286 vs. 0.0276 for Splatter Image). The state-of-the-art claim is therefore not firmly established; please release the evaluation code or provide confidence intervals and significance tests.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Appendix C, Tables 5-6] The component ablations in Appendix C (Tables 5 and 6) are trained for only 6 epochs, and the authors state that the metrics are "not directly comparable" to the 100-epoch models in Tables 1-4; the claim that rankings stabilize after 3 epochs is informal and not backed by error bars. Since the contributions (two Gaussians per pixel, direct colour sampling, optimizable channels, and jitter loss) are mainly supported by these ablations, the quantitative attribution of each component to the final result needs stronger evidence, such as ablations at matched training budgets with multiple seeds.
  4. [Sec. 3] The live demonstration is impressive, but it runs at 28 FPS on an NVIDIA 4090 Mobile GPU, which is a high-end laptop GPU rather than a typical consumer webcam setup. The abstract's "commodity hardware" claim should be qualified with the actual GPU requirements and with the fact that face detection, head-pose estimation, camera calibration, and network transmission are not evaluated for accuracy in the live system. Please state the hardware requirements and report an end-to-end latency breakdown.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] There is a typo in the Euclidean RGB distance description: "the the RGB space" should read "the RGB space."
  2. [Table 4] The SSIM value "08658" is missing a decimal point and should be "0.8658."
  3. [Fig. 6] The caption lists methods in an order inconsistent with the surrounding text and citation numbers ("Input FaceLift TriPlaneNet SI Ours Ground" with references [19], [1], [32]); please align the caption with the figure legend and the cited references.
  4. [References] Reference [30] is cited for SongUNet but points to Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models; please cite the correct Song et al. score-based architecture that the backbone is based on.
  5. [Sec. 5] The statement "Our method cannot be used to impersonate someone else" is too strong, since the method does not authenticate the video source or prevent replay or relay attacks; please soften this claim.
  6. [Appendix A] No code is provided for the re-implemented metrics; given the stated alignment and cropping discrepancies, releasing the evaluation code would substantially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core reconstruction is trained with multi-view supervision on synthetic data and tested on external held-out benchmarks; the 'authenticity' property is a training objective, but the reported results are measured on data not seen during training.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard supervised learning pipeline, not a self-referential derivation. The claimed properties (authentic, realistic, live, stable) are defined in Sec. 1 and realized by training the U-Net with the loss in Eqs. 1-2. The input view v=1 participates in the training loss, so authenticity is an optimized training objective rather than an independently derived theorem. That is not circular because the quantitative claims are evaluated on held-out external benchmarks: Cafca [2], Ava-256 [20], and FFHQ [9], none of which are used for training. The synthetic training data is generated with the authors' own prior pipeline (Hewitt et al. [8], Sec. 2.2), which is a self-citation, but it is used as a data source, not as a justificatory premise for the method's correctness; the paper's central claim does not reduce to that citation. The global scale correction in Sec. 2.3 fits a per-sample scale from ground-truth depth before computing the loss, which removes absolute scale from the training target; this is a train/test mismatch and a potential correctness risk, but it is not circular, since at inference no ground-truth scale is used and the novel-view metrics still test the actual feed-forward predictions. The evaluation protocols in Appendix A align 2D landmarks and use ground-truth masks and cameras, which weakens the real-webcam claim, but again this is an evaluation limitation, not a circular reduction. No equation is defined in terms of the result it is claimed to predict, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fitted parameter. Most comparisons are against external methods, and the Splatter Image baseline is retrained on the same data for fairness. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no invented physical entities. Its central claims rest on standard differentiable Gaussian splatting, hand-chosen loss weights and architecture choices, and on the empirical assumption that synthetic training data generalizes to real webcams. The most load-bearing hand-chosen values are the loss weights (λp, λσ, λm, λc, λj), the number of Gaussians per pixel K=2, and the supervision view count Nv=11. The key domain assumption, synthetic-to-real transfer, is partially validated by experiments but also contradicted by the failure cases listed in Sec. 4.3.

free parameters (8)
  • perceptual loss weight λp = 0.5
    Hand-chosen weight in image comparison loss Li (Sec. 2.3), balances Euclidean RGB vs VGG perceptual losses.
  • opacity loss weight λσ = 1e-4
    Hand-chosen weight for Lσ encouraging opaque Gaussians (Sec. 2.3).
  • mean-opacity penalty λm = 5
    Hand-chosen weight for Lm avoiding local minima with unused Gaussian layers (Sec. 2.3).
  • decay rate τ in Lm = 50
    Hand-chosen exponential decay in the mean-opacity penalty (Sec. 2.3).
  • scale regularization weight λc = 1
    Hand-chosen weight for log(s)^2 term on scale correction to help convergence (Sec. 2.3).
  • jitter loss weight λj = 1.0
    Hand-chosen weight for temporal stability loss Lj (Sec. 2.3), tested only at this value.
  • Gaussians per pixel K = 2
    Selected by experiment (Sec. 2.1, Table 5); one layer gives coarse geometry, the other high-frequency detail.
  • number of supervision views Nv = 11
    Input view plus ten virtual cameras on a 45 deg spherical cap (Sec. 2.2); design choice for training.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Gaussian splat rasterization is a differentiable, accurate image formation model for optimizing 3D scenes (Kerbl et al. [10]).
    Used throughout training and rendering (Sec. 2.3); the paper builds on existing Gaussian splatting rather than proving its validity.
  • domain assumption Synthetic human renderings from the authors' pipeline are sufficiently representative of real webcam appearance that a model trained only on them generalizes to real images.
    Stated in Sec. 1.1 and Sec. 2.2; the entire approach relies on this transfer, and Sec. 4.3 lists failure cases where it does not hold.
  • domain assumption In the live demo, the viewer's head position can be estimated from a face bounding box and a fixed assumed distance to the camera, and the camera-screen pose is known through calibration.
    Sec. 3, steps 1 and 4; if the fixed-distance or calibration assumptions are wrong, the motion parallax effect degrades.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VoluMe -- Authentic 3D Video Calls from Live Gaussian Splat Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/745O4FYA

@misc{pith2026250721311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VoluMe -- Authentic 3D Video Calls from Live Gaussian Splat Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/745O4FYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21311}
}
read the original abstract

Virtual 3D meetings offer the potential to enhance copresence, increase engagement and thus improve effectiveness of remote meetings compared to standard 2D video calls. However, representing people in 3D meetings remains a challenge; existing solutions achieve high quality by using complex hardware, making use of fixed appearance via enrolment, or by inverting a pre-trained generative model. These approaches lead to constraints that are unwelcome and ill-fitting for videoconferencing applications. We present the first method to predict 3D Gaussian reconstructions in real time from a single 2D webcam feed, where the 3D representation is not only live and realistic, but also authentic to the input video. By conditioning the 3D representation on each video frame independently, our reconstruction faithfully recreates the input video from the captured viewpoint (a property we call authenticity), while generalizing realistically to novel viewpoints. Additionally, we introduce a stability loss to obtain reconstructions that are temporally stable on video sequences. We show that our method delivers state-of-the-art accuracy in visual quality and stability metrics compared to existing methods, and demonstrate our approach in live one-to-one 3D meetings using only a standard 2D camera and display. This demonstrates that our approach can allow anyone to communicate volumetrically, via a method for 3D videoconferencing that is not only highly accessible, but also realistic and authentic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a streaming monocular video of a person, our method reconstructs each frame as a realistic 3D Gaussian splat of the moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Splatter image components: a) input ROI, b) colour, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example images from our synthetic training data. a) Input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our the training (top) and inference (bottom) pipelines of our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison for images from the Cafca dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison for images from the Ava-256 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison for images from the FFHQ dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison for failure case of Live 3D Portrait [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results of our method. Our approach is able to accurately reconstruct headwear, glasses and other accessories, as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Limitations of our method include: unusual texture on the face, extreme input angles, hands/props, segmentation failures. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional qualitative results of our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Additional qualitative results of our method with geometry renders. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results showing each ‘layer’ of Gaussians predicted by our method rendered separately. High frequency details and disconnected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bhattarai, Matthias Nießner, and Artem Sevastopol- sky

    Ananta R. Bhattarai, Matthias Nießner, and Artem Sevastopol- sky. TriPlaneNet: An encoder for EG3D inversion. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 3055–3065, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Marcel C. Buehler, Gengyan Li, Erroll Wood, Leonhard Helminger, Xu Chen, Tanmay Shah, Daoye Wang, Stephan Garbin, Sergio Orts-Escolano, Otmar Hilliges, Dmitry Lagun, J´er´emy Riviere, Paulo Gotardo, Thabo Beeler, Abhimitra Meka, and Kripasindhu Sarkar. Cafca: High-quality novel view synthesis of expressive faces from casual few-shot cap- tures. In SIGGRAP...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Authentic volumetric avatars from a phone scan

    Chen Cao, Tomas Simon, Jin Kyu Kim, Gabe Schwartz, Michael Zollhoefer, Shun-Suke Saito, Stephen Lombardi, Shih-En Wei, Danielle Belko, Shoou-I Yu, Yaser Sheikh, and Jason Saragih. Authentic volumetric avatars from a phone scan. ACM Trans. Graph., 41(4), 2022. 2

    2022

  4. [4]

    Chan, Connor Z

    Eric R. Chan, Connor Z. Lin, Matthew A. Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Efficient geometry-aware 3D genera- tive adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16123–16133, 2...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    MonoGaussian- Avatar: Monocular Gaussian point-based head avatar

    Yufan Chen, Lizhen Wang, Qijing Li, Hongjiang Xiao, Sheng- ping Zhang, Hongxun Yao, and Yebin Liu. MonoGaussian- Avatar: Monocular Gaussian point-based head avatar. InACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, New York, NY , USA,

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Garbin, Marek Kowalski, Virginia Estellers, Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Shideh Rezaeifar, Jingjing Shen, Matthew A

    Stephan J. Garbin, Marek Kowalski, Virginia Estellers, Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Shideh Rezaeifar, Jingjing Shen, Matthew A. Johnson, and Julien Valentin. V olTeMorph: Real- time, controllable and generalizable animation of volumetric representations. Computer Graphics Forum, 43(6):e15117,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Learning neural parametric head models

    Simon Giebenhain, Tobias Kirschstein, Markos Georgopou- los, Martin R ¨unz, Lourdes Agapito, and Matthias Nießner. Learning neural parametric head models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Look Ma, no markers: holistic perfor- mance capture without the hassle

    Charlie Hewitt, Fatemeh Saleh, Sadegh Aliakbarian, Lohit Petikam, Shideh Rezaeifar, Louis Florentin, Zafiirah Hose- nie, Thomas J Cashman, Julien Valentin, Darren Cosker, and Tadas Baltruˇsaitis. Look Ma, no markers: holistic perfor- mance capture without the hassle. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(6):#235:1–12, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 6, 7

    2019

  2. [10]

    3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radi- 10 ance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radi- 10 ance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4),

  3. [11]

    Realistic one-shot mesh-based head avatars

    Taras Khakhulin, Vanessa Sklyarova, Victor Lempitsky, and Egor Zakharov. Realistic one-shot mesh-based head avatars. In European Conference of Computer vision (ECCV), 2022. 7

    2022

  4. [12]

    Avat3r: Large an- imatable Gaussian reconstruction model for high-fidelity 3D head avatars, 2025

    Tobias Kirschstein, Javier Romero, Artem Sevastopolsky, Matthias Nießner, and Shunsuke Saito. Avat3r: Large an- imatable Gaussian reconstruction model for high-fidelity 3D head avatars, 2025. 2

    2025

  5. [13]

    Desloge, Tommy Fortes, Eric M

    Jason Lawrence, Dan B Goldman, Supreeth Achar, Gre- gory Major Blascovich, Joseph G. Desloge, Tommy Fortes, Eric M. Gomez, Sascha H ¨aberling, Hugues Hoppe, Andy Huibers, Claude Knaus, Brian Kuschak, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, Harris Nover, Andrew Ian Russell, Steven M. Seitz, a...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Head tracking for desktop virtual reality displays using the Wii remote, 2007

    Johnny Chung Lee. Head tracking for desktop virtual reality displays using the Wii remote, 2007. http://youtu.be/Jd3-eiid- Uw. 6

    2007

  7. [15]

    Era3D: High-resolution multiview diffusion using efficient row-wise attention

    Peng Li, Yuan Liu, Xiaoxiao Long, Feihu Zhang, Cheng Lin, Mengfei Li, Xingqun Qi, Shanghang Zhang, Wei Xue, Wenhan Luo, Ping Tan, Wenping Wang, Qifeng Liu, and Yike Guo. Era3D: High-resolution multiview diffusion using efficient row-wise attention. In The Thirty-eighth Annual ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    CLIFF: Carrying location information in full frames into human pose and shape estimation

    Zhihao Li, Jianzhuang Liu, Zhensong Zhang, Songcen Xu, and Youliang Yan. CLIFF: Carrying location information in full frames into human pose and shape estimation. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2022, pages 590–606, Cham, 2022. Springer Nature Switzerland. 4

    2022

  9. [17]

    SSD: Single shot multibox detector

    Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C Berg. SSD: Single shot multibox detector. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14, ...

    2016

  10. [18]

    Mixture of volumetric primitives for efficient neural rendering

    Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Gabriel Schwartz, Michael Zollhoefer, Yaser Sheikh, and Jason Saragih. Mixture of volumetric primitives for efficient neural rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 40(4), 2021. 2

    2021

  11. [19]

    FaceLift: Single image to 3D head with view generation and gs-lrm

    Weijie Lyu, Yi Zhou, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Zhixin Shu. FaceLift: Single image to 3D head with view generation and gs-lrm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17812, 2024. 2, 6, 7, 9, 10

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Jewett, Simon Venshtain, Christopher Heilman, Yueh-Tung Chen, Sidi Fu, Mohamed Ezzeldin A

    Julieta Martinez, Emily Kim, Javier Romero, Timur Bagautdi- nov, Shunsuke Saito, Shoou-I Yu, Stuart Anderson, Michael Zollh¨ofer, Te-Li Wang, Shaojie Bai, Chenghui Li, Shih- En Wei, Rohan Joshi, Wyatt Borsos, Tomas Simon, Jason Saragih, Paul Theodosis, Alexander Greene, Anjani...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020. 2

    2020

  14. [22]

    Olson and Judith S

    Gary M. Olson and Judith S. Olson. Distance matters. Hum.- Comput. Interact., 15(2):139–178, 2000. 1

    2000

  15. [23]

    Gaussian- Avatars: Photorealistic head avatars with rigged 3D Gaussians

    Shenhan Qian, Tobias Kirschstein, Liam Schoneveld, Davide Davoli, Simon Giebenhain, and Matthias Nießner. Gaussian- Avatars: Photorealistic head avatars with rigged 3D Gaussians. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20299–...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Technological factors influencing videoconferencing and Zoom fatigue

    Alexander Raake, Markus Fiedler, Katrin Schoenenberg, Katrien De Moor, and Nicola D ¨oring. Technological factors influencing videoconferencing and Zoom fatigue. arXiv:2202.01740 [cs], 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    U- Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, pa...

    2015

  18. [26]

    Relightable Gaussian codec avatars

    Shunsuke Saito, Gabriel Schwartz, Tomas Simon, Junxuan Li, and Giljoo Nam. Relightable Gaussian codec avatars. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 130–141, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  19. [27]

    Gasp: Gaussian avatars with synthetic priors

    Jack Saunders, Charlie Hewitt, Yanan Jian, Marek Kowal- ski, Tadas Baltrusaitis, Yiye Chen, Darren Cosker, Virginia Estellers, Nicholas Gyd´e, Vinay P Namboodiri, et al. Gasp: Gaussian avatars with synthetic priors. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Gazing heads: Investigating gaze perception in video-mediated communication

    Martin Schuessler, Luca Hormann, Raimund Dachselt, An- drew Blake, and Carsten Rother. Gazing heads: Investigating gaze perception in video-mediated communication. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 31(3), 2024. 1

    2024

  21. [29]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR, abs/1409.1556, 2014. 5

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  23. [31]

    Flash3D: Feed-forward generalisable 3D scene reconstruction from a single image

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Eldar Insafutdinov, Chuanxia Zheng, Dylan Campbell, Joao F Henriques, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Flash3D: Feed-forward generalisable 3D scene reconstruction from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04343, 2024. 3 11

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3D reconstruc- tion

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3D reconstruc- tion. In The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

    2024

  25. [33]

    LGM: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation

    Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. LGM: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1–18. Springer, 2024. 7

    2024

  26. [34]

    Tang, Kori Inkpen, Sasa Junuzovic, Keri Mallari, Andrew D

    John C. Tang, Kori Inkpen, Sasa Junuzovic, Keri Mallari, Andrew D. Wilson, Sean Rintel, Shiraz Cupala, Tony Car- bary, Abigail Sellen, and William A.S. Buxton. Perspectives: Creating inclusive and equitable hybrid meeting experiences. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 7(CSCW2)...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Chan, Chao Liu, Zhiding Yu, Sameh Khamis, Manmohan Chandraker, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Koki Nagano

    Alex Trevithick, Matthew Chan, Michael Stengel, Eric R. Chan, Chao Liu, Zhiding Yu, Sameh Khamis, Manmohan Chandraker, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Koki Nagano. Real- time radiance fields for single-image portrait view synthesis. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (SIGGRAPH), 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2023

  28. [36]

    Rodin: A generative model for sculpting 3D digital avatars using diffusion

    Tengfei Wang, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Shuyang Gu, Jianmin Bao, Tadas Baltrusaitis, Jingjing Shen, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, Qifeng Chen, and Baining Guo. Rodin: A generative model for sculpting 3D digital avatars using diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer ...

    2023

  29. [37]

    FlashAvatar: High-fidelity head avatar with efficient Gaussian embedding

    Jun Xiang, Xuan Gao, Yudong Guo, and Juyong Zhang. FlashAvatar: High-fidelity head avatar with efficient Gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 2

    2024

  30. [38]

    AGG: Amortized generative 3D Gaussians for single image to 3D.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    Dejia Xu, Ye Yuan, Morteza Mardani, Sifei Liu, Jiaming Song, Zhangyang Wang, and Arash Vahdat. AGG: Amortized generative 3D Gaussians for single image to 3D.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gaussian head avatar: Ultra high-fidelity head avatar via dynamic Gaussians

    Yuelang Xu, Benwang Chen, Zhe Li, Hongwen Zhang, Lizhen Wang, Zerong Zheng, and Yebin Liu. Gaussian head avatar: Ultra high-fidelity head avatar via dynamic Gaussians. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    3D Gaussian parametric head model

    Yuelang Xu, Lizhen Wang, Zerong Zheng, Zhaoqi Su, and Yebin Liu. 3D Gaussian parametric head model. In Pro- ceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024. 2

    2024

  33. [41]

    GS-LRM: Large re- construction model for 3D Gaussian splatting

    Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. GS-LRM: Large re- construction model for 3D Gaussian splatting. European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    Good- fellow

    Stephan Zheng, Yang Song, Thomas Leung, and Ian J. Good- fellow. Improving the robustness of deep neural networks via stability training. CoRR, abs/1604.04326, 2016. 5

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Instant volumetric head avatars

    Wojciech Zielonka, Timo Bolkart, and Justus Thies. Instant volumetric head avatars. 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 4574–4584, 2022. 2

    2023

  36. [44]

    Triplane meets gaussian splatting: Fast and generalizable single-view 3d reconstruction with transformers

    Zi-Xin Zou, Zhipeng Yu, Yuan-Chen Guo, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang, Yan-Pei Cao, and Song-Hai Zhang. Triplane meets gaussian splatting: Fast and generalizable single-view 3d reconstruction with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern...

    2024

  37. [2024]

    Association for Computing Machinery. 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.