Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

MorphGS transfers articulated motion from a monocular video to a rigged 3D character by directly optimizing the target's morphology and pose through image-space supervision, without reconstructing the source in 3D or using category-specific

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

MorphGS retargets motion from a monocular video onto a rigged 3D character by optimizing target morphology and pose with image-space losses, without 3D source reconstruction or parametric templates.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The target-driven optimization idea is genuinely new and the ablations are solid, but the synthetic benchmark sentence in Sec. 4.2 is ambiguous at the exact point that decides whether the headline claim tests cross-morphology transfer at all. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02716 v3 pith:FMBTSF4S submitted 2026-01-06 cs.CV

MorphGS: Morphology-Adaptive Articulated 3D Motion Transfer from Videos

Taeyeon Kim , Youngju Na , Jumin Lee , Sebin Lee , Minhyuk Sung , Sung-Eui Yoon This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords motion retargetingmonocular videoanalysis-by-synthesismorphology parameterization3D Gaussian splattingdifferentiable renderingarticulated pose estimationrigged characters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 motion retargeting from monocular video can be solved as a target-driven analysis-by-synthesis problem: instead of reconstructing the source subject and then transferring its motion, one can directly optimize the target character's skeletal proportions and per-frame joint rotations so that a differentiable renderer reproduces the observed video. The central move is a rig-coupled morphology parameterization that ties all shape changes to bone lengths, global scale, and skeleton-anchored offsets, factorizing time-invariant character identity from time-varying pose and reducing shape-pose ambiguity. Dense 2D-3D semantic correspondences and diffusion-synthesized views supply structural and multi-view constraints, and 3D Gaussian splatting provides the differentiable rendering. If this is right, a single video is enough to animate a morphologically different rigged character without parametric body templates or explicit 3D supervision.

Core claim

MorphGS claims that video-to-3D motion retargeting can be formulated and solved entirely in the target's parameter space. Given a source video and a rigged target mesh, it optimizes time-invariant morphology parameters—global scale, learnable bone lengths, and local rest-pose offsets anchored to skeleton joints—together with a time-conditioned pose network that outputs per-joint rotations and root translation. The posed target is rendered with differentiable Gaussian splatting, and losses compare rendered frames against the source video, including a dense correspondence term and synthesized-view rendering. The paper reports consistently lower motion-transfer error than reconstruct-then-retar

What carries the argument

The rig-coupled morphology parameterization: each canonical vertex is written as a global scale times a skeleton-anchored anchor plus a local offset, where the anchor is a skinning-weighted average of rest-pose joint positions that depend on learnable bone lengths. This couples surface geometry to the kinematic tree so that changing one bone length coherently moves all attached vertices, preventing shape updates from absorbing pose error. The pose trajectory comes from a time-conditioned MLP that outputs per-joint axis-angle rotations and root translation, applied through forward kinematics and linear blend skinning, then rendered by 3D Gaussian splatting. Structural guidance comes from dens

Load-bearing premise

The source subject and target character must share a compatible articulated topology: every motion the source can make must be expressible by the target's fixed kinematic tree, and the paper states that this assumption limits transfer across subjects with significantly different kinematic structures.

What would settle it

A cross-topology transfer test: take a source video of a human and retarget to a target whose rig lacks the corresponding degrees of freedom (e.g., a whale or spider), or to a target with extra joints; if the method silently fails or produces geometrically implausible motion there, the compatible-topology assumption is confirmed as the limiting factor. More directly, a synthetic experiment with known ground truth and deliberately degenerate motion (e.g., planar motion only) should break the claimed identifiability of bone-length ratios.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Monocular RGB video alone can drive a rigged character with different body proportions, removing the need for intermediate 3D reconstruction of the source.
  • Retargeting quality no longer depends on the accuracy of a source reconstruction step, which is the main bottleneck in reconstruct-then-retarget pipelines.
  • Because the optimization is target-driven, the approach can handle categories without parametric templates (e.g., birds or whales) as long as the target has a rig, possibly obtained by auto-rigging.
  • Under the paper's identifiability argument, weak-perspective monocular observations with sufficiently non-degenerate motion determine bone-length ratios uniquely, giving a theoretical foundation for optimizing skeletal morphology directly from 2D video.
  • The same framework extends naturally to multi-view supervision: synthesized views simply add image-space objectives over the same target parameters, so additional viewpoints can be plugged in without changing the formulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the framework holds, motion transfer could become a per-target optimization service: a user supplies any rigged mesh and any video, and the same optimization code adapts without retraining or category-specific assets—an implication the paper does not develop.
  • The paper's own stated limitation points to a sharp boundary: transfer across very different kinematic topologies (e.g., human arm to whale flipper) should fail; a concrete test would be to measure where retargeting breaks as joint counts and limb configurations diverge.
  • The dense correspondence and synthesized-view modules are replaceable components; swapping in a different semantic feature extractor or view generator may shift results, so the core claim's practical robustness may be sensitive to these auxiliary choices even though the paper only ablates a few variants.
  • The identifiability argument assumes weakly perspective cameras and piecewise rigidity; a natural extension is to enforce physics-based contact and soft-tissue constraints, which the authors flag as future work, to handle real-world perspective effects and non-rigid deformation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MorphGS, a target-driven analysis-by-synthesis framework for transferring articulated motion from a monocular video to a rigged 3D character. The method optimizes a small set of morphology parameters (global scale, bone lengths, local offsets) together with a time-conditioned pose network so that differentiable Gaussian splatting renders the animated target to match the source video. Dense semantic 2D-3D correspondences and diffusion-based synthesized views provide additional supervision. The authors report quantitative improvements over reconstruct-then-retarget baselines on Mixamo, DT4D, and real-world video, with ablations showing the contribution of each component.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would make a useful contribution: it replaces the common reconstruct-then-retarget pipeline with a direct, template-free optimization in the target's parameter space, and the idea of coupling morphology parameters to the rig to reduce shape-pose ambiguity is well motivated. The manuscript includes a substantial ablation study, per-scene tables, and an identifiability proof sketch, which are strengths. However, the current text contains several formal ambiguities and at least one equation-level issue that block assessment of the central claim. The source-video generation protocol in Sec. 4.2 is ambiguous in a way that could invalidate the cross-morphology claim, and the keypoint loss in Eq. (10)-(12) is written as a constant with respect to the optimized variables. These are load-bearing and must be corrected before the empirical contributions can be evaluated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2 (Datasets)] The evaluation protocol is ambiguous at the most load-bearing point. The sentence 'To generate source videos, we animate the target with the ground-truth pose sequence and render a monocular video from a fixed viewpoint' can be read as rendering the same target mesh that is later used as the retargeting target. If so, source and target are identical, and the synthetic benchmark reduces to pose estimation of a known character; Tables 1-2 would not test morphology-adaptive cross-character transfer. If this is a typo for 'source' or 'source mesh', the text must say so explicitly, and the construction of the ground-truth target mesh sequence used in PMD must be specified. Without code/data release, this ambiguity cannot be resolved post hoc. This must be fixed before the empirical claims can be assessed.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1)-(8); final paragraph of Sec. 3.1] There is a mismatch between optimization and deployment. The optimization updates bone lengths ℓ_b and local offsets o_k, which change the rest-pose skeleton and canonical vertex positions used in forward kinematics and skinning (Eqs. 4-8). At the end, the paper states that only the pose trajectory {P_t(ϕ)} is applied to the original target rig Mtgt, 'preserving its original geometry.' But local rotations estimated against the adapted skeleton do not produce the same global joint trajectories when applied to a rig with different bone lengths; end-effector and body-part trajectories change. The manuscript must specify exactly which object is used for evaluation (the adapted morphology or the original rig) and how the final animation is generated from (ϕ, m). This is load-bearing because the ablation in Table 3 shows bone lengths and offsets account for most of the improvement.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (10)-(12)] As written, the dense keypoint loss is independent of the optimization variables. Eq. (10) defines the matching score between a source pixel u and a vertex x ∈ V(M_tgt) of the static target mesh, using rendered images I^tgt_v of that same static mesh. The matched point x̃_{u,t} in Eq. (12) is therefore a constant; with π a fixed camera projection, L_keyp is constant with respect to ϕ and m and cannot provide any gradient. The ablation in Table 3 attributes a large improvement to L_keyp (PMD 4.52→2.96), which is only possible if the implemented loss uses the currently posed/deformed vertices or an equivalent differentiable dependence on pose. The formal description must be corrected to match the implemented objective; as it stands, the method section does not support the reported ablation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The text 'These results indicate that our target-driven, morphology-adaptive optimization is effective on unconstrained monocular videos [28, 72]' cites SMPL and SMAL references rather than video datasets; the citation should be fixed.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The pooling operator 'pool_{v,x∈V(M_tgt)}' is underspecified: it should state explicitly which dimensions are pooled and how the similarity map over vertices is reduced to a scalar.
  3. [Sec. 3.4 / Eq. (9)] The main-text loss omits the regularization term L_reg, which appears later in Eq. (14). For clarity, define all terms in the main objective or refer to the appendix when L is first introduced.
  4. [Appendix A.1 / loss weights] The loss weights are listed in a sentence; a small table would improve readability and reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

As written, Sec. 4.2 renders source videos from the target mesh itself, collapsing the synthetic benchmark into same-rig pose fitting; the optimization framework otherwise is not circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.2, Datasets (synthetic benchmark construction)]
    "To generate source videos, we animate the target with the ground-truth pose sequence and render a monocular video from a fixed viewpoint using the differentiable mesh renderer in PyTorch3D [36], yielding 1,505 pairs of source–target mesh in total across the three splits."

    The source video is generated by rendering the same 'target' mesh that MorphGS is then asked to retarget into. Under the paper's own notation, M_tgt is the character being optimized (Eq. 1-2), so the input video is a rendering of the output character. The optimization therefore reduces to pose estimation of a known, identical rig: there is no morphology gap, and the PMD/FVMD numbers in Table 1 measure fitting the target to its own renderings, not cross-morphology transfer. If 'target' was intended to read 'source', the paper gives no corrected protocol, code, or data to verify that the source and target meshes actually differ; the ambiguity is load-bearing because Tables 1 and the central synthetic claim rest on it.

full rationale

Aside from the synthetic-benchmark construction in Sec. 4.2, MorphGS is a self-contained inverse-graphics optimization: Eq. (2) minimizes image-space losses against external video frames, the morphology parameterization (Eqs. 3-6) and skinning (Eqs. 7-8) are stated assumptions rather than derived results, and the dense correspondences (Eqs. 10-12) are anchored by a frozen externally trained feature extractor [69] with a fixed target mesh. Appendix D's identifiability argument is a standard scaled-orthographic SfM factorization claim, not a self-citation. The baselines include the authors' own NPR+ [65], but the comparison is empirical and the central method does not rest on that citation. The Conclusion's compatible-topology assumption is an admitted scope limitation, not a circular step. However, the quoted Sec. 4.2 sentence literally makes the source video a rendering of the target mesh with the ground-truth pose. If taken literally, the synthetic PMD/FVMD numbers in Table 1 are pose-recovery results on a known character with zero morphology gap; the 'morphology-adaptive transfer' claim is then not tested there. Since no code/data are released and no corrected protocol sentence appears, the ambiguity is load-bearing. This is a real, but partial, circularity: the real-world FVMD evaluation is external and the optimization framework itself stands independently.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

MorphGS introduces no new physical entities; its load-bearing assumptions are domain-level (compatible topology, piecewise rigidity, reliable feature matching and pseudo-view synthesis) plus hand-tuned losses and fitted morphology parameters. The honest accounting shows the paper contributes the optimization formulation and the evaluation, while obtaining the identifiability guarantee, correspondence anchors, and multi-view supervision from idealized assumptions and prior tools.

free parameters (4)
  • s_global = optimized (value not reported)
    Uniform global scale in Eq. (6) resolving monocular depth-scale ambiguity; Appendix D explicitly leaves a 'single global scale factor' unfixed, so this parameter is not identifiable from the video alone.
  • bone lengths ℓ_b = optimized per bone (values not reported)
    Learnable limb-proportion parameters (Eq. 4) fitted to source video; ablation shows material effect (Tab. 3: PMD 3.72 → 2.87 when enabled).
  • local offsets o_k = optimized per Gaussian (≈ K×3 values)
    Per-primitive rest-space offsets (Eq. 5/6) released after iteration 1.5k; effectively per-vertex deformation DOF anchored to the rig, fitted to source appearance.
  • loss weights {λ_render, λ_mv, λ_keyp, λ_smooth, λ_chamf, λ_trans, λ_arap} = 1.0, 0.25, 0.006, 0.01, 0.001, 0.005, 1.0
    Hand-chosen weights in Eq. (14) / Appendix A.1 that balance the seven supervision terms; the reported results depend on this tuning.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Weak-perspective projection and standard rigid structure-from-motion factorization (Tomasi-Kanade / paraperspective)
    Used in Appendix D.3 Step 1 (Eq. 19–23) to claim per-bone recovery up to a similarity; cited as [45, 35].
  • domain assumption Piecewise rigidity of bones and fixed local-frame surface points across frames (A1)
    Appendix D.1; the paper concedes in Sec. 3.2 that real videos deviate (perspective effects, soft-tissue deformation).
  • domain assumption Non-degenerate motion of each bone, including rotation about two independent axes (A2)
    Appendix D.1; required for rank-3 measurement matrices and shared-joint constraints; not validated for the real-world clips.
  • domain assumption Source and target share a compatible articulated topology (same kinematic tree)
    Stated in Conclusion: 'the current framework assumes a compatible articulated topology between the source and target. This assumption inherently limits transfer across subjects with significantly different kinematic structures.'
  • domain assumption Geo-Aware semantic features [69] supply reliable cross-domain 2D–3D part correspondences for arbitrary categories
    Sec. 3.4 / Eq. 10–11; keypoint loss depends on cosine-similarity matching between source video and rendered target views; only ablated among DINOv2/DINOv3/Geo-Aware (Tab. A1), not validated on out-of-distribution categories.
  • domain assumption Diffusion-based novel-view synthesis SV4D [62] provides temporally consistent pseudo-views of the source
    Sec. 3.4 / Eq. 13; if synthesized views hallucinate content, the multi-view losses steer pose away from ground truth; no verification of pseudo-view fidelity is reported.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MorphGS: Morphology-Adaptive Articulated 3D Motion Transfer from Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMBTSF4S

@misc{pith2026260102716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MorphGS: Morphology-Adaptive Articulated 3D Motion Transfer from Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMBTSF4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02716}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Transferring articulated motion from monocular videos to rigged 3D characters is challenging due to pose ambiguity in 2D observations and morphological differences between source and target. Existing approaches often follow a reconstruct-then-retarget paradigm, tying transfer quality to intermediate 3D reconstruction and limiting applicability to categories with parametric templates. We propose MorphGS, a framework that formulates motion retargeting as a target-driven analysis-by-synthesis problem, directly optimizing target morphology and pose through image-space supervision. A rig-coupled morphology parameterization factorizes character identity from time-varying joint rotations, while dense 2D-3D correspondences and synthesized views provide complementary structural and multi-view guidance. Experiments on synthetic benchmarks and real-world videos show consistent improvements over baselines. Project page: https://xodus777.github.io/MorphGS/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02716 by Jumin Lee, Minhyuk Sung, Sebin Lee, Sung-Eui Yoon, Taeyeon Kim, Youngju Na.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Given a monocular video and a rigged 3D target character, MorphGS directly optimizes target morphology and pose parameters to reproduce the observed motion without explicit source 3D reconstruction or category-specific parametric templates. Abstract Transferring articulated motion from monocular videos to rigged 3D characters is challenging due to pose ambiguity in 2D observations and morphological differe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of MorphGS. Given a source video and a target character, MorphGS first represents the target as morphology-adaptive articulated 3D mesh (Sec. 3.2). 3D Gaussian representation is wrapped to deform pose and render differentiably (Sec. 3.3). The morphology and pose parameters are jointly optimized through image-space supervision (Sec. 3.4). The recovered motion is then retargeted to the target charac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Morphology parameterization. (a) An overview of skeleton anchor pk, local offset ok, and 3D Gaussian primitives on the target rig. (b) Distinct motion deformation induced by global scale, bone lengths, and offset Gaussians. (c) An example of morphology adaptation. anchor, vk = pk + ok, where ok ∈ R 3 is a skeletal anchored rest-space offset relative to pk that captures local residual geometry (e.g., thickn… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dense 2D-3D correspondences matching. (a) Extracting semantic features from source frames and rendered target views. (b) Calculating similarity between them. (c) 3D keypoint mapping corresponding to the source pixel. Rasterization The posed Gaussians are projected onto the image plane and composited via depth-sorted alpha blending [18], producing a rendered frame ˆIt = R(Mt(ϕ, m)  ). This closes the diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on Mixamo and DT4D datasets. Our method shows superior pose alignment compared to baselines across diverse objects. differentiable rendering in the target parameter space, which maintains target mesh structure while showing reasonable pose alignment to source motions as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results on real-world videos. We show motion transfer results on in-the-wild videos. lower PMD and FVMD than both baselines, demonstrating reasonable motion transferring performance on non-standard categories that remain relatively underexplored in the motion retargeting literature. Real-world video-to-3D motion transfer We evaluate on real-world monocular videos by using in-the￾wild clips as m… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual analysis of morphology parame￾terization. 4.4 Ablation Studies In this section, we evaluate the key components of our framework by ablating the morphology parameteri￾zation and supervision signals. Effects of morphology parameterization We first analyze the effect of our morphology parameteriza￾tion by comparing it against a naïve model that defines each canonical vertex vk ∈ R 3 as a free variable … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Follow Your Track: Precise Skeleton Animation Controlled by 3D Trajectories

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ACT is a trajectory-conditioned framework for topology-general skeletal animation that injects 3D point trajectories from monocular video into skeletons via a Routed Trajectory Injector for improved fidelity and tempo...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Accessed: 2024-10-01

    Pexels: Free stock photos and videos.https://www.pexels.com, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-01

    2024

  2. [2]

    Skeleton-aware networks for deep motion retargeting.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(4):62–1, 2020

    Kfir Aberman, Peizhuo Li, Dani Lischinski, Olga Sorkine-Hornung, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Baoquan Chen. Skeleton-aware networks for deep motion retargeting.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(4):62–1, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Mixamo.https://www.mixamo.com

    Adobe. Mixamo.https://www.mixamo.com

  4. [4]

    Saor: Single-view articulated object reconstruction

    Mehmet Aygun and Oisin Mac Aodha. Saor: Single-view articulated object reconstruction. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10382–10391, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Automatic rigging and animation of 3d characters.ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG), 26(3):72–es, 2007

    Ilya Baran and Jovan Popović. Automatic rigging and animation of 3d characters.ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG), 26(3):72–es, 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Monocular differentiable rendering for self-supervised 3d object detection

    Deniz Beker, Hiroharu Kato, Mihai Adrian Morariu, Takahiro Ando, Toru Matsuoka, Wadim Kehl, and Adrien Gaidon. Monocular differentiable rendering for self-supervised 3d object detection. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 514–529. Springer, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Sf3d: Stable fast 3d mesh recon- struction with uv-unwrapping and illumination disentanglement

    Mark Boss, Zixuan Huang, Aaryaman Vasishta, and Varun Jampani. Sf3d: Stable fast 3d mesh recon- struction with uv-unwrapping and illumination disentanglement. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 16240–16250, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Weakly-supervised 3d pose transfer with keypoints

    Jinnan Chen, Chen Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Weakly-supervised 3d pose transfer with keypoints. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15156–15165, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    A point set generation network for 3d object recon- struction from a single image

    Haoqiang Fan, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. A point set generation network for 3d object recon- struction from a single image. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 605–613, 2017

    2017

  10. [10]

    Sync4d: Video guided controllable dynamics for physics-based 4d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16849, 2024

    Zhoujie Fu, Jiacheng Wei, Wenhao Shen, Chaoyue Song, Xiaofeng Yang, Fayao Liu, Xulei Yang, and Guosheng Lin. Sync4d: Video guided controllable dynamics for physics-based 4d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16849, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Automatic unpaired shape deformation transfer.ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 37(6):1–15, 2018

    Lin Gao, Jie Yang, Yi-Ling Qiao, Yu-Kun Lai, Paul L Rosin, Weiwei Xu, and Shihong Xia. Automatic unpaired shape deformation transfer.ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 37(6):1–15, 2018

    2018

  12. [12]

    Retargetting motion to new characters

    Michael Gleicher. Retargetting motion to new characters. InProceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 33–42, 1998

    1998

  13. [13]

    Humansin4d: Reconstructingandtrackinghumanswithtransformers

    Shubham Goel, Georgios Pavlakos, Jathushan Rajasegaran, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Jitendra Malik. Humansin4d: Reconstructingandtrackinghumanswithtransformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14783–14794, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Gaussianavatar: Towards realistic human avatar modeling from a single video via animatable 3d gaussians

    LiangxiaoHu, HongwenZhang, YuxiangZhang, BoyaoZhou, BoningLiu, ShengpingZhang, andLiqiang Nie. Gaussianavatar: Towards realistic human avatar modeling from a single video via animatable 3d gaussians. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 634–644, June 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Sc-gs: Sparse- controlled gaussian splatting for editable dynamic scenes

    Yi-Hua Huang, Yang-Tian Sun, Ziyi Yang, Xiaoyang Lyu, Yan-Pei Cao, and Xiaojuan Qi. Sc-gs: Sparse- controlled gaussian splatting for editable dynamic scenes. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4220–4230, June 2024. 12 Preprint

    2024

  16. [16]

    Farm3d: Learning articulated 3d animals by distilling 2d diffusion

    Tomas Jakab, Ruining Li, Shangzhe Wu, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Farm3d: Learning articulated 3d animals by distilling 2d diffusion. In2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 852–861. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Black, David W

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Michael J. Black, David W. Jacobs, and Jitendra Malik. End-to-end recovery of human shape and pose. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018

    2018

  18. [18]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Trans

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

    2023

  19. [19]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    Struc- ture from articulated motion: accurate and stable monocular 3d reconstruction without training data

    Onorina Kovalenko, Vladislav Golyanik, Jameel Malik, Ahmed Elhayek, and Didier Stricker. Struc- ture from articulated motion: accurate and stable monocular 3d reconstruction without training data. Sensors, 19(20):4603, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    Learning analysis-by-synthesis for 6d pose estimation in rgb-d images

    Alexander Krull, Eric Brachmann, Frank Michel, Michael Ying Yang, Stefan Gumhold, and Carsten Rother. Learning analysis-by-synthesis for 6d pose estimation in rgb-d images. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 954–962, 2015

    2015

  22. [22]

    4dcomplete: Non- rigid motion estimation beyond the observable surface

    Yang Li, Hikari Takehara, Takafumi Taketomi, Bo Zheng, and Matthias Nießner. 4dcomplete: Non- rigid motion estimation beyond the observable surface. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 12706–12716, 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    Dreammesh4d: Video-to-4d generation with sparse-controlled gaussian-mesh hybrid representation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:21377– 21400, 2024

    Zhiqi Li, Yiming Chen, and Peidong Liu. Dreammesh4d: Video-to-4d generation with sparse-controlled gaussian-mesh hybrid representation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:21377– 21400, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Learning the 3d fauna of the web

    Zizhang Li, Dor Litvak, Ruining Li, Yunzhi Zhang, Tomas Jakab, Christian Rupprecht, Shangzhe Wu, Andrea Vedaldi, and Jiajun Wu. Learning the 3d fauna of the web. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9752–9762, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Skeleton-freeposetrans- fer for stylized 3d characters

    ZhouyingchengLiao, JimeiYang, JunSaito, GerardPons-Moll, andYangZhou. Skeleton-freeposetrans- fer for stylized 3d characters. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 640–656. Springer, 2022

    2022

  26. [26]

    Fr\’echet video motion distance: A metric for evaluating motion consistency in videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16124, 2024

    Jiahe Liu, Youran Qu, Qi Yan, Xiaohui Zeng, Lele Wang, and Renjie Liao. Fr\’echet video motion distance: A metric for evaluating motion consistency in videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16124, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

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

    RuoshiLiu, RundiWu, BasileVanHoorick, PavelTokmakov, SergeyZakharov, andCarlVondrick. Zero- 1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9298–9309, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model.ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 34(6):248:1–248:16, October 2015

    2015

  29. [29]

    Animer: Animal pose and shape estimation using family aware transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00837, 2024

    Jin Lyu, Tianyi Zhu, Yi Gu, Li Lin, Pujin Cheng, Yebin Liu, Xiaoying Tang, and Liang An. Animer: Animal pose and shape estimation using family aware transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00837, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Transfer4d: A framework for frugal motion capture and deformation transfer

    Shubh Maheshwari, Rahul Narain, and Ramya Hebbalaguppe. Transfer4d: A framework for frugal motion capture and deformation transfer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12836–12846, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis.Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis.Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 13 Preprint

    2021

  32. [32]

    Temporal residual jacobians for rig-free motion transfer

    SanjeevMuralikrishnan, NiladriDutt, SiddharthaChaudhuri, NoamAigerman, VladimirKim, Matthew Fisher, and Niloy J Mitra. Temporal residual jacobians for rig-free motion transfer. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 93–109. Springer, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation

    Federico Perazzi, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Brian McWilliams, Luc Van Gool, Markus Gross, and Alexander Sorkine-Hornung. A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 724–732, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    A paraperspective factorization method for shape and motion recovery.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 19(3):206–218, 1997

    Conrad J Poelman and Takeo Kanade. A paraperspective factorization method for shape and motion recovery.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 19(3):206–218, 1997

    1997

  36. [36]

    Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d.arXiv:2007.08501, 2020

    Nikhila Ravi, Jeremy Reizenstein, David Novotny, Taylor Gordon, Wan-Yen Lo, Justin Johnson, and Georgia Gkioxari. Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d.arXiv:2007.08501, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    Learning monocular 3d human pose estimation from multi-view images

    Helge Rhodin, Jörg Spörri, Isinsu Katircioglu, Victor Constantin, Frédéric Meyer, Erich Müller, Mathieu Salzmann, and Pascal Fua. Learning monocular 3d human pose estimation from multi-view images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8437–8446, 2018

    2018

  38. [38]

    Barc: Learning to regress 3d dog shape from images by exploiting breed information

    Nadine Rueegg, Silvia Zuffi, Konrad Schindler, and Michael J Black. Barc: Learning to regress 3d dog shape from images by exploiting breed information. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3876–3884, 2022

    2022

  39. [39]

    Bite: Beyond priors for improved three-d dog pose estimation

    Nadine Rüegg, Shashank Tripathi, Konrad Schindler, Michael J Black, and Silvia Zuffi. Bite: Beyond priors for improved three-d dog pose estimation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8867–8876, 2023

    2023

  40. [40]

    Mitra, and David Novotny

    Remy Sabathier, Niloy J. Mitra, and David Novotny. Animal avatars: Reconstructing animatable 3d animals from casual videos. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part LXXIX, page 270–287, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Shic: Shape-image correspondences with no keypoint supervision

    Aleksandar Shtedritski, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Shic: Shape-image correspondences with no keypoint supervision. InECCV, 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    Oriane Siméoni, Huy V. Vo, Maximilian Seitzer, Federico Baldassarre, Maxime Oquab, Cijo Jose, Vasil Khalidov, Marc Szafraniec, Seungeun Yi, Michaël Ramamonjisoa, Francisco Massa, Daniel Haziza, Luca Wehrstedt, Jianyuan Wang, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Leonel Sentana, Claire Roberts, Andrea Vedaldi, Jamie Tolan, John Brandt, Camille Couprie, Julien ...

    2025

  43. [43]

    Puppeteer: Rig and animate your 3d models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10898, 2025

    Chaoyue Song, Xiu Li, Fan Yang, Zhongcong Xu, Jiacheng Wei, Fayao Liu, Jiashi Feng, Guosheng Lin, and Jianfeng Zhang. Puppeteer: Rig and animate your 3d models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10898, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Magicarticulate: Make your 3d models articulation-ready

    Chaoyue Song, Jianfeng Zhang, Xiu Li, Fan Yang, Yiwen Chen, Zhongcong Xu, Jun Hao Liew, Xiaoyang Guo, Fayao Liu, Jiashi Feng, et al. Magicarticulate: Make your 3d models articulation-ready. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 15998–16007, 2025

    2025

  45. [45]

    Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: a factor- ization method.International journal of computer vision, 9(2):137–154, 1992

    Carlo Tomasi and Takeo Kanade. Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: a factor- ization method.International journal of computer vision, 9(2):137–154, 1992

    1992

  46. [46]

    Template-free articulated neural point clouds for reposable view synthesis.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:31621–31637, 2023

    Lukas Uzolas, Elmar Eisemann, and Petr Kellnhofer. Template-free articulated neural point clouds for reposable view synthesis.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:31621–31637, 2023

    2023

  47. [47]

    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, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 14 Preprint

    2017

  48. [48]

    Contact-aware retarget- ing of skinned motion

    Ruben Villegas, Duygu Ceylan, Aaron Hertzmann, Jimei Yang, and Jun Saito. Contact-aware retarget- ing of skinned motion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9720–9729, 2021

    2021

  49. [49]

    Neural kinematic networks for unsu- pervised motion retargetting

    Ruben Villegas, Jimei Yang, Duygu Ceylan, and Honglak Lee. Neural kinematic networks for unsu- pervised motion retargetting. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8639–8648, 2018

    2018

  50. [50]

    Neural textured deformable meshes for robust analysis-by-synthesis

    Angtian Wang, Wufei Ma, Alan Yuille, and Adam Kortylewski. Neural textured deformable meshes for robust analysis-by-synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 3108–3117, 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Zero-shot pose transfer for unrigged stylized 3d characters

    Jiashun Wang, Xueting Li, Sifei Liu, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Xiaolong Wang, and Jan Kautz. Zero-shot pose transfer for unrigged stylized 3d characters. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8704–8714, 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

    Neural pose transfer by spatially adaptive instance normalization

    Jiashun Wang, Chao Wen, Yanwei Fu, Haitao Lin, Tianyun Zou, Xiangyang Xue, and Yinda Zhang. Neural pose transfer by spatially adaptive instance normalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5831–5839, 2020

    2020

  53. [53]

    Motiondreamer: One-to-manymotionsynthesiswithlocalizedgenerativemaskedtransformer

    Yilin Wang, Chuan Guo, Yuxuan Mu, Muhammad Gohar Javed, Xinxin Zuo, Juwei Lu, Hai Jiang, and LiCheng. Motiondreamer: One-to-manymotionsynthesiswithlocalizedgenerativemaskedtransformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08959, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20310–20320, June 2024

    2024

  55. [55]

    Dove: Learning deformable 3d objects by watching videos.International Journal of Computer Vision, 131(10):2623–2634, 2023

    Shangzhe Wu, Tomas Jakab, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Dove: Learning deformable 3d objects by watching videos.International Journal of Computer Vision, 131(10):2623–2634, 2023

    2023

  56. [56]

    Magicpony: Learn- ing articulated 3d animals in the wild

    Shangzhe Wu, Ruining Li, Tomas Jakab, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Magicpony: Learn- ing articulated 3d animals in the wild. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8792–8802, 2023

    2023

  57. [57]

    Sc4d: Sparse-controlled video-to-4d generation and motion transfer

    Zijie Wu, Chaohui Yu, Yanqin Jiang, Chenjie Cao, Fan Wang, and Xiang Bai. Sc4d: Sparse-controlled video-to-4d generation and motion transfer. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 361–

  58. [58]

    A closed-form solution to non-rigid shape and motion recovery

    Jing Xiao, Jin-xiang Chai, and Takeo Kanade. A closed-form solution to non-rigid shape and motion recovery. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 573–587. Springer, 2004

    2004

  59. [59]

    Rignet: Neural rigging for articulated characters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00559, 2020

    Zhan Xu, Yang Zhou, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Chris Landreth, and Karan Singh. Rignet: Neural rigging for articulated characters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00559, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    Banmo: Building animatable 3d neural models from many casual videos

    GengshanYang, MinhVo, NataliaNeverova, DevaRamanan, AndreaVedaldi, andHanbyulJoo. Banmo: Building animatable 3d neural models from many casual videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2863–2873, 2022

    2022

  61. [61]

    Lassie: Learning articulated shapes from sparse image ensemble via 3d part discovery.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:15296–15308, 2022

    Chun-Han Yao, Wei-Chih Hung, Yuanzhen Li, Michael Rubinstein, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Varun Jam- pani. Lassie: Learning articulated shapes from sparse image ensemble via 3d part discovery.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:15296–15308, 2022

    2022

  62. [62]

    Sv4d 2.0: Enhancing spatio-temporal consistency in multi-view video diffusion for high-quality 4d generation

    Chun-Han Yao, Yiming Xie, Vikram Voleti, Huaizu Jiang, and Varun Jampani. Sv4d 2.0: Enhancing spatio-temporal consistency in multi-view video diffusion for high-quality 4d generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13248–13258, 2025

    2025

  63. [63]

    Riggs: Rigging of 3d gaussians for modeling articulated objects in videos

    Yuxin Yao, Zhi Deng, and Junhui Hou. Riggs: Rigging of 3d gaussians for modeling articulated objects in videos. InThe IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025. 15 Preprint

    2025

  64. [64]

    Physical inertial poser (pip): Physics-aware real-time human motion tracking from sparse inertial sensors

    Xinyu Yi, Yuxiao Zhou, Marc Habermann, Soshi Shimada, Vladislav Golyanik, Christian Theobalt, and Feng Xu. Physical inertial poser (pip): Physics-aware real-time human motion tracking from sparse inertial sensors. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2022

    2022

  65. [65]

    Neural pose representation learning for generating and transferring non-rigid object poses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09728, 2024

    Seungwoo Yoo, Juil Koo, Kyeongmin Yeo, and Minhyuk Sung. Neural pose representation learning for generating and transferring non-rigid object poses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09728, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Magicpose4d: Crafting articulated models with appearance and motion control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14017, 2024

    Hao Zhang, Di Chang, Fang Li, Mohammad Soleymani, and Narendra Ahuja. Magicpose4d: Crafting articulated models with appearance and motion control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14017, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Pymaf: 3d human pose and shape regression with pyramidal mesh alignment feedback loop

    Hongwen Zhang, Yating Tian, Xinchi Zhou, Wanli Ouyang, Yebin Liu, Limin Wang, and Zhenan Sun. Pymaf: 3d human pose and shape regression with pyramidal mesh alignment feedback loop. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 11446–11456, 2021

    2021

  68. [68]

    One model to rig them all: Diverse skeleton rigging with unirig.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12451, 2025

    Jia-Peng Zhang, Cheng-Feng Pu, Meng-Hao Guo, Yan-Pei Cao, and Shi-Min Hu. One model to rig them all: Diverse skeleton rigging with unirig.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12451, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Telling left from right: Identifying geometry-aware semantic correspondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Eric Chen, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Telling left from right: Identifying geometry-aware semantic correspondence. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3076–3085, 2024

    2024

  70. [70]

    Tongjie Y Zhang and Ching Y. Suen. A fast parallel algorithm for thinning digital patterns.Commu- nications of the ACM, 27(3):236–239, 1984

    1984

  71. [71]

    Unsupervised shape and pose disentan- glement for 3d meshes

    Keyang Zhou, Bharat Lal Bhatnagar, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Unsupervised shape and pose disentan- glement for 3d meshes. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXII 16, pages 341–357. Springer, 2020

    2020

  72. [72]

    3d menagerie: Modeling the 3d shape and pose of animals

    Silvia Zuffi, Angjoo Kanazawa, David W Jacobs, and Michael J Black. 3d menagerie: Modeling the 3d shape and pose of animals. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6365–6373, 2017. 16 Preprint Appendix In this appendix, we provide implementation details (Sec. A), extended ablation studies (Sec. B), analysis ...

    2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.