Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 25 references

NewtonGS: Physics-Structured Object-Level Neural Newtonian Dynamics for Gaussian Scene Animation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NewtonGS proposes that animating a static Gaussian scene reduces to rolling out one 22-dimensional physical state per object and applying the predicted pose and scale as a shared affine transform to all object Gaussians.

desk verdict Solid, honest systems integration, but the ID leg of the headline claim is selected on the test set; the OOD leg holds and the architecture is still worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07598 v1 pith:IKLNSGIP submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CV

Lianlei Shan , Feiyang Ye , Yan Chen , Yong Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingobject-leveldynamicsneuralODEresidualsphysics-structuredlearningcontacteventsstate-to-Gaussiantransformsceneanimationquaternionkinematics
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

NewtonGS argues that animating a static 3D Gaussian scene can be reduced to rolling out one compact physical state per object and then applying that state to the object's Gaussians with a single shared affine transform. The object state has 22 numbers: position, orientation quaternion, linear and angular velocity, anisotropic scale and scale rate, mass, restitution, and tangential attenuation. The dynamics model keeps the analytic Newtonian structure—gravity, damping, quaternion kinematics, scale restoration, and a discrete floor-contact bounce—and adds two small neural residual networks that start at zero and learn only the corrections. On a procedurally generated corpus of 32 motion families, the hybrid predicts positions, endpoints, and velocities with lower error than five hand-specified analytic baselines on both the in-distribution and velocity-range-shift splits. If the claim holds, the practical message is that editable object-level states, rather than per-Gaussian deformation fields, can be the control handle for Gaussian scene animation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Gaussian Neural Newtonian Dynamics (Gaussian-NND), a 22-dimensional state per object combined with a continuous analytic prior, zero-initialized neural residuals, and a discrete contact map. The state's variables are chosen so that the same numbers that drive the ODE also define a deterministic affine map for all Gaussians in the object, separating translation, rotation, and anisotropic scale while preserving covariance positive semidefiniteness. RK4 integrates the hybrid field; a floor event outside the continuous solver handles instantaneous velocity changes. This machinery is what lets the model predict one trajectory per object rather than one trajectory per Gaussian primitive.

What would settle it

On a held-out set of real reconstructed Gaussian objects with automatically lifted states, compare NewtonGS's trajectory RMSE against the best analytic baseline over contact-rich motions; if the hybrid's advantage is not reproduced or the lifted states are unstable, the paper's central claim would be refuted. A more direct check is to feed the model a real video with unknown object state and see whether the predicted 22-dimensional rollout matches the observed motion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a physics-structured hybrid is the right way to predict object-level motion for Gaussian animation: fixed analytic dynamics alone underfit the synthetic motion families, while an unstructured network would sacrifice interpretability and control. Gaussian-NND therefore writes state evolution as a structured ODE with $\dot p=v$, $\dot q=\tfrac12 q\otimes[0,\omega]$, gravity and damping in $\dot v$, scale restoration in $\dot u$, and a discontinuous horizontal-floor event that applies restitution and tangential attenuation, with learned residual terms $r_v,r_\omega,r_s$ and an impulse correction $\Delta v,\Delta\omega$ added at contacts. The predicted pose and scale are converted to a relative rotation-and-scale matrix $A_t=R(q_t\otimes q_0^*)\operatorname{diag}(s_t\oslash s_0)$, and every Gaussian of the object updates as $g_i^t=A_t(g_i^0-p^0)+p^t$, $\Sigma_i^t=A_t\Sigma_i^0A_t^\top$. The reported experiments show lower trajectory RMSE, final-displacement error, and velocity RMSE than five analytic baselines on State-32's in-distribution and velocity-range-shift splits, with the explicit caveat that these evaluations start from labeled initial states and do not test observation-to-state inference.

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers come from procedurally generated trajectories with the true initial state handed to the model, so the central premise is that such labeled object states—or a lifting procedure that recovers them—are available for real Gaussian objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users could animate a reconstructed Gaussian object by editing roughly ten physical quantities—position, velocity, scale, mass, restitution, and friction—instead of specifying per-Gaussian motion.
  • Because the dynamics cost is independent of the Gaussian count, scenes with millions of primitives remain animatable with the same learned model.
  • The zero-initialized residual design gives a safe default: before learning, the rollout is exactly the analytic physics prior, so failures can be attributed to the prior rather than to a black-box network.
  • The rotation-and-scale affine update keeps covariance matrices valid, so rendered primitives stay coherent under large predicted motion.
  • The velocity-range-shift results suggest the learned corrections are not merely memorizing training speeds, although the benchmark remains synthetic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the same hybrid is applied to real reconstructed scenes, its success will hinge on the state-lifting step; the paper's own appendix flags that PCA lifting can flip axes or leak masks, so a natural test is to measure how much of the State-32 advantage survives automatic lifting.
  • Editorial inference: the 22-dimensional state could be extended to multi-object interaction by replacing the single floor event with pairwise contact and broad-phase collision, which the current model explicitly excludes.
  • Editorial inference: since State-32 targets are generated from closed-form formulas, a stronger stress test is to train the same architecture on a simulator with contact-rich, articulated, or non-analytic dynamics and compare against the analytic prior; the paper lists real scenes as future work.
  • Editorial inference: the shared affine transform means 'non-rigid deformation' in the benchmark covers only aggregate anisotropic scaling, so a genuine deformation field would require a larger state or per-part transforms.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces NewtonGS, a framework for object-level animation of static 3D Gaussian scenes. Each object is assigned a 22-dimensional dynamic state (position, quaternion orientation, linear/angular velocity, anisotropic scale and its rate, mass, restitution, and tangential attenuation). A structured hybrid model, Gaussian-NND, combines analytic translation, quaternion kinematics, gravity, damping, and scale-restoration dynamics with learned continuous and contact residuals; floor contact is treated as a discrete event. Predicted states are mapped back to Gaussian primitives through a shared affine transformation. The method is evaluated on two procedurally generated datasets: State-32 for state rollout and Gaussian-32 for state-to-Gaussian conversion. The main empirical claim is that NewtonGS achieves lower trajectory RMSE, final displacement error, and velocity RMSE than five analytic baselines on both the in-distribution and velocity-range-shift splits of State-32.

Significance. If the headline results survive scrutiny, the paper makes a useful contribution: it offers a compact, controllable object-level state for Gaussian scene animation and shows that a hybrid analytic-plus-residual dynamics model can outperform hand-specified analytic baselines on a large procedural benchmark. The manuscript is unusually transparent: it reports three-seed runs with small standard deviations, provides full procedural-generator specifications and exact evaluation formulas in the appendix, and candidly documents failure modes and the observation-to-state gap in Appendix G. These strengths are substantial. The main caveats are that the reported improvements over baselines are modest (roughly 2 to 5 percent relative error reduction), the comparison set contains no learned non-physics baseline, and the in-distribution evaluation is compromised by the checkpoint-selection protocol described in Appendix B.2. The real-scene gap is acknowledged by the authors and is not, by itself, a fatal flaw.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.2 / §4.2] Appendix B.2 states that "val_id and val_ood are exactly the ID and OOD test sets reported in the main paper" and that "Model selection uses the complete val_id objective," and Appendix A.6 confirms that the best checkpoint is selected by that objective. Because the ID rows of Table 1 are computed on val_id, the in-distribution half of the abstract's claim is a test-set-selected number rather than an out-of-sample result: the checkpoint is chosen to minimize the loss on the very sequences used to compute the reported ID metrics. This is a load-bearing methodological problem. Please introduce a genuine validation split disjoint from both test splits, select checkpoints on it, and re-report Table 1. The OOD comparison, which is not used for selection, remains informative.
  2. [Eq. (8) vs. Appendix A.4, Eq. (19)] The main-text affine map in Eq. (8), A_t = R_t diag(rho_t) R_0^T, is not the transform implemented in Appendix A.4, Eq. (19), Aimpl_t = R(q_t ⊗ q*_0) diag(rho_t). These coincide only for q0 = I or isotropic scale; for a general initial orientation they differ because the scale is applied in different frames. Since the state-to-Gaussian conversion is a stated contribution and is used in the Gaussian-32 experiments, the paper should either report results using the Eq. (8) transform or explicitly adopt the implemented version in the main text and explain the discrepancy.
  3. [§4.4 and Conclusion] The experiments compare NewtonGS only with hand-specified analytic baselines; no learned, non-physics baseline is trained on the same data and loss, and the paper itself lists "learned baselines" as future work. Because a central motivation is that the physics structure improves learned dynamics, a feedforward or recurrent trajectory model of comparable capacity is needed to establish that the structured prior, rather than the neural residual alone, is responsible for the reported gains. The post-hoc branch removal in Table 14 does not answer this question, since the remaining model is not independently trained without the branch.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.4 / Table 3] Appendix B.4 states that the Common-12 manifest contains 84 videos across seven methods, but Table 3 reports results for only five methods. Please either include the CogVideoX and NewtonGen rows or explicitly state why they are omitted from the table.
  2. [§3.5] The sentence "The smoothness term penalizes Lpen second temporal differences of position and, with relative weight 0.1, scale" is garbled; it should read something like "The smoothness term penalizes second temporal differences of position and, with relative weight 0.1, scale, and is included in Lsmooth."
  3. [Table 2 caption] The caption describes the comparison as "exploratory" and notes that L4GM receives different inputs, which is appropriate; consider adding a sentence in the main text of §4.6 clarifying that the velocity comparison is not a controlled same-input comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The in-distribution leg of the headline result is selected on the test set: val_id is both the model-selection set and the reported ID test set, so the ID claim is not an out-of-sample prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B.2 (State-32) and Appendix A.6, Table 4 (Checkpointing)]
    "The executed corpus contains exactly three partitions named train, val_id, and val_ood. The val prefix is an implementation-level filename retained for compatibility: val_id and val_ood are exactly the ID and OOD test sets reported in the main paper, rather than validation subsets in addition to a missing test set. Both are generated independently of and are disjoint from the training set. Model selection uses the complete val_id objective, and the reported ID and velocity-shift results are evaluations on val_id and val_ood, respectively; val_ood is not used for checkpoint selection."

    Table 1's ID rows report trajectory, FDE, and velocity errors computed on val_id, but Appendix A.6/Table 4 states that checkpoints are saved at epoch 1 and every 5 epochs and that the 'best checkpoint selected by the complete val_id objective.' The reported ID numbers are therefore the result of selecting the model on the same sequences used to produce those very metrics. The abstract's conjunctive claim of lower errors 'on both the in-distribution and velocity-range-shift splits' has one leg that is a selected, not predicted, outcome; the checkpoint is fitted to the ID test set by the paper's own protocol. The OOD leg remains valid because val_ood is explicitly not used for checkpoint selection.

full rationale

The state-rollout derivation itself is self-contained: Gaussian-NND is a supervised hybrid model trained on labeled State-32 sequences, the analytic prior and zero-initialized residuals are stated explicitly, and the state-to-Gaussian map is a deterministic affine transform rather than a fitted prediction. Citations to NewtonGen and other prior work are motivational and not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is used to force the architecture or the comparison. The only circular element is the ID evaluation protocol: Appendix B.2 discloses that val_id is exactly the reported ID test set and that model selection uses the complete val_id objective, so the ID rows of Table 1 are selected on the test set rather than out-of-sample. Appendix G candidly concedes the observation-to-state gap and the synthetic-data scope, and the Common-12 and L4GM tables are labeled proxy or interface checks, so those limitations are acknowledged rather than hidden. Because one of the two conjunctive legs of the headline claim is compromised by construction while the OOD leg and the core learning formulation retain independent content, the appropriate score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard math (quaternion kinematics, RK4), hand-chosen modeling assumptions (floor proxy, shared affine state-to-Gaussian map, scale-restoration prior), and a large set of parameters learned from the synthetic State-32 corpus. The paper does not derive the dynamics from first principles or from independent physical measurements.

free parameters (4)
  • cv, c_omega, k_s, c_s, alpha, alpha_imp = trained, final values not reported; initial values 0.05, 0.05, 0.25, 0.08, 0.01, 0.01
    These scalar coefficients in Eq. 4 and Eq. 7 are optimized on State-32 rather than derived from measured physics.
  • Neural residual weights of f_theta and h_phi = 81,429 trainable parameters total
    Both MLPs are fitted to synthetic trajectories; this network capacity is the main learnable component.
  • Loss weights in Eq. 10 and Eq. 11 = 1.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0, 0.05, 0.01
    Hand-selected training hyperparameters; changing them changes the reported model and results.
  • RK4 substep maximum = 1/30 s, giving two 1/48 s substeps per 24 Hz frame
    Discretization choice in Algorithm 1 and Section 4.2; exact results depend on this numerical setting.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quaternion kinematics: dq/dt = (1/2) q ⊗ [0, omega]
    Used in Eq. 4 and Appendix A.2 as the exact orientation update; standard Hamilton-product convention, not proved in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Floor contact is a horizontal plane y=0 with vertical extent proxy r_y = max(|s_y|, 1e-3)
    Introduced in Eq. 5; the proxy substitutes aggregate scale for geometric support radius and is not derived from the Gaussian geometry.
  • domain assumption All Gaussians of an object move by the same affine map A_t = R_t diag(rho_t) R_0^T
    Eqs. 8 and 9 assume rigid-plus-anisotropic-scale object coherence; Appendix G states this cannot represent articulation, topology change, or local deformation.
  • ad hoc to paper Scale-restoration dynamics: u_dot = -|k_s|(s-1) - |c_s|u + alpha r_s
    Eq. 4 adds a spring-like pull toward unit scale with no physical derivation; it is a modeling choice with learned coefficients.
  • domain assumption Material channels (m, e, mu) are constant during rollout and supplied with the initial state
    Section 3.2 states the model does not estimate them from appearance; this limits application to labeled or metadata-rich inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper State-32 generator equations define the ground-truth target dynamics
    Appendix B.2 specifies closed-form and semi-implicit procedural formulas; the evaluation treats these synthetic definitions as ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NewtonGS: Physics-Structured Object-Level Neural Newtonian Dynamics for Gaussian Scene Animation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKLNSGIP

@misc{pith2026260807598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NewtonGS: Physics-Structured Object-Level Neural Newtonian Dynamics for Gaussian Scene Animation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKLNSGIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07598}
}
read the original abstract

Animating objects in a static 3D Gaussian scene requires an explicit object-level dynamic state and a controllable model of object motion. Existing dynamic Gaussian methods primarily reconstruct time-varying scenes or simulate deformation, rather than provide compact object states for direct control. To address this gap, we present NewtonGS, a physics-structured framework for object-level state rollout and Gaussian scene animation. NewtonGS represents each object with a 22-dimensional state covering pose, linear and angular velocity, anisotropic scale and its rate, mass, and contact properties. Its Gaussian Neural Newtonian Dynamics (Gaussian-NND) model combines analytic translation, quaternion kinematics, gravity, damping, and scale-restoration dynamics with learned continuous and contact residuals. A discrete event map handles floor contact. Predicted poses and scales define a shared affine transformation that updates the means and covariances of all Gaussians associated with each object. We construct two procedurally generated datasets: State-32 for state-rollout evaluation and Gaussian-32 for state-to-Gaussian transformation. On both the in-distribution and velocity-range-shift splits of State-32, NewtonGS achieves lower trajectory RMSE, final displacement error, and velocity RMSE than five analytic baselines. Experiments on Gaussian-32 further demonstrate effective conversion from predicted states to animated Gaussian objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of NewtonGS. Given an object-centric Gaussian scene, we represent each dynamic object by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of different methods. Blue identifies the proposed NewtonGS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zero-all versus zero-last initialization. Top: recorded training and full-ID objectives. Bottom: relative changes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-motion trajectory-RMSE reduction relative to Physics-Prior-SE(3). Positive values favor NewtonGS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ID trajectory visualizations, set A: stop-and-go motion, rolling then collision, two-stage motion, orbit with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ID trajectory visualizations, set B: damped pendulum, helical flight, spiral-orbit decay, circular-orbital motion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Response to explicit restitution, tangential-attenuation, and mass inputs. The calibrated structured model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PIS-3D versus trajectory RMSE for six non-oracle methods. The positive rank correlation is opposite to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Four-frame sequences for parabolic motion with rotation. The NewtonGS column shows coupled displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Six-frame State-32 comparisons for bouncing on a plane, vertical launch, and throwing followed by landing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pretrained LGM (Tang et al., 2024a) first-frame 3DGS followed by Gaussian-NND. The top row shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: LGM (Tang et al., 2024a) supplies the bowling-alley 3DGS at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Six-frame NewtonGS sequences with static scene backgrounds: 3D motion, acceleration, circular motion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Six-frame NewtonGS sequences with static scene backgrounds: deceleration, deformation, parabolic motion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Six-frame NewtonGS sequences with static scene backgrounds: rotation, size changing, slope sliding, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Yuchen Lin, Chenguo Lin, Jianjin Xu, and Yadong Mu

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00037. Yuchen Lin, Chenguo Lin, Jianjin Xu, and Yadong Mu. OmniPhysGS: 3d constitutive gaussians for general physics- based dynamics generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18982,

    arXiv 2023

  2. [9]

    Huan Ling, Seung Wook Kim, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.18982. 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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18982

  3. [11]

    Qiaowei Miao, Jinsheng Quan, Kehan Li, and Yawei Luo

    doi: 10.1109/3DV62453.2024.00044. Qiaowei Miao, Jinsheng Quan, Kehan Li, and Yawei Luo. PLA4D: Pixel-level alignments for text-to-4d gaussian splatting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19957,

    arXiv 2024

  4. [12]

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19957. Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. DreamFusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19957

  5. [14]

    Jiawei Ren, Kevin Xie, Ashkan Mirzaei, Hanxue Liang, Xiaohui Zeng, Karsten Kreis, Ziwei Liu, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, Seung Wook Kim, and Huan Ling

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.17142. Jiawei Ren, Kevin Xie, Ashkan Mirzaei, Hanxue Liang, Xiaohui Zeng, Karsten Kreis, Ziwei Liu, Antonio Torralba, Sanja Fidler, Seung Wook Kim, and Huan Ling. L4GM: Large 4d gaussian reconstruction model. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.17142

  6. [16]

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20314. 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,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.20314

  7. [18]

    Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Yifan Wang, Hansheng Chen, Ceyuan Yang, Sida Peng, Yujun Shen, and Gordon Wetzstein

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.00420. Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Yifan Wang, Hansheng Chen, Ceyuan Yang, Sida Peng, Yujun Shen, and Gordon Wetzstein. GRM: Large gaussian reconstruction model for efficient 3d reconstruction and generation. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision,

    arXiv 2024

  8. [19]

    Qiyao Xue, Xiangyu Yin, Boyuan Yang, and Wei Gao

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-72633-0_1. Qiyao Xue, Xiangyu Yin, Boyuan Yang, and Wei Gao. PhyT2V: Llm-guided iterative self-refinement for physics- grounded text-to-video generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 18826–18836,

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72633-0_1

Show all 25 references
  1. [20]

    Zeyu Yang, Zijie Pan, Xiatian Zhu, Li Zhang, Jianfeng Feng, Yu-Gang Jiang, and Philip H

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR52734.2025.01754. Zeyu Yang, Zijie Pan, Xiatian Zhu, Li Zhang, Jianfeng Feng, Yu-Gang Jiang, and Philip H. S. Torr. 4d gaussian splatting: Modeling dynamic scenes with native 4d primitives.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20720,

    2025

  2. [21]

    Vickie Ye, Ruilong Li, Justin Kerr, Matias Turkulainen, Brent Yi, Zhuoyang Pan, Otto Seiskari, Jianbo Ye, Jeffrey Hu, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.20720. Vickie Ye, Ruilong Li, Justin Kerr, Matias Turkulainen, Brent Yi, Zhuoyang Pan, Otto Seiskari, Jianbo Ye, Jeffrey Hu, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. gsplat: An open-source library for gaussian splatting.Journal of Machine Learning Research...

    doi arXiv

  3. [22]

    Splat4D: Diffusion-enhanced 4d gaussian splatting for temporally and spatially consistent content creation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07557,

    Minghao Yin, Yukang Cao, Songyou Peng, and Kai Han. Splat4D: Diffusion-enhanced 4d gaussian splatting for temporally and spatially consistent content creation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07557,

    arXiv

  4. [23]

    2508.07557

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2508.07557. Yu Yuan, Xijun Wang, Tharindu Wickremasinghe, Zeeshan Nadir, Bole Ma, and Stanley H. Chan. NewtonGen: Physics- consistent and controllable text-to-video generation via neural newtonian dynamics. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations,

    doi arXiv

  5. [24]

    11 Appendix This appendix is organized as follows

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-72627-9_22. 11 Appendix This appendix is organized as follows. • Section Adocuments the model objective, state conventions, Gaussian transformation, initialization, optimiza- tion, evaluation, and inference. • Section Bspecifies the Gaussian-32 evaluatio...

    doi

  6. [25]

    The loader accepts a tensor of shape (T, C)or (B, T, C), where B is batch size, T is the number of timestamps, and C is the number of supplied channels. It adds a batch dimension when necessary, retains the first 22 channels, converts the result to contiguous float32, and perf...

    1993

  7. [26]

    Neither renderer affects the state metrics

    or the lightweight fallback. Neither renderer affects the state metrics. B Dataset Construction This section defines four data resources in order. Gaussian-32 is the appearance-conditioned Gaussian evaluation set; State-32 is the procedural state-trajectory corpus; Same-32 is ...

    2026

  8. [27]

    The vectors p,v,s,u∈R 3 are position, velocity, scale, and scale rate

    (28) Here t≥0 is elapsed time; subscripts 0 and t denote initial and current quantities. The vectors p,v,s,u∈R 3 are position, velocity, scale, and scale rate. The first line integrates constant linear velocity. The second line integrates constant scale rate and then applies m...

  9. [1985]

    Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu

    doi: 10.1145/325334.325242. 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. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, 2024a. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-73235-5_1. Jiaxi...

  10. [1993]

    doi: 10.1007/978-3- 540-78862-1. I. T. Jolliffe.Principal Component Analysis. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York, 2 edition,

    doi

  11. [2002]

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis

    doi: 10.1007/b98835. Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4),

    doi

  12. [2019]

    Physion: Evaluating physical prediction from vision in humans and machines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08261,

    Daniel M Bear, Elias Wang, Damian Mrowca, Felix J Binder, Hsiao-Yu Fish Tung, RT Pramod, Cameron Holdaway, Sirui Tao, Kevin Smith, Fan-Yun Sun, et al. Physion: Evaluating physical prediction from vision in humans and machines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08261,

    arXiv

  13. [2020]

    Yunze Deng, Haijun Xiong, Bin Feng, Xinggang Wang, and Wenyu Liu

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2003.04630. Yunze Deng, Haijun Xiong, Bin Feng, Xinggang Wang, and Wenyu Liu. STP4D: Spatio-temporal-prompt consistent modeling for text-to-4d gaussian splatting. InIEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo,

    2003 doi arXiv

  14. [2021]

    Spergel, and Shirley Ho

    Miles Cranmer, Sam Greydanus, Stephan Hoyer, Peter Battaglia, David N. Spergel, and Shirley Ho. Lagrangian neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04630,

    2003 arXiv

  15. [2022]

    Jiawei Ren, Liang Pan, Jiaxiang Tang, Chi Zhang, Ang Cao, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.14988. 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,

    doi arXiv

  16. [2023]

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin

    doi: 10.1145/3592433. Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision a...

    doi

  17. [2025]

    Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio

    doi: 10.1109/ICME59968.2025.11209788. Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. InProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 9 of Proceedings of Mach...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.