Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Cortex-Synth: Differentiable Topology-Aware 3D Skeleton Synthesis with Hierarchical Graph Attention

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single network can extract both 3D skeleton geometry and connectivity from one 2D image, with 42% fewer topological errors than prior methods.

desk verdict The empirical core is unverifiable: the baseline citations are fabricated, so the claimed SOTA numbers are unsupported; this deserves a desk reject, not referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06705 v1 pith:P5NTCKZG submitted 2025-09-08 cs.CV

Mohamed Zayaan S This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dskeletonsynthesistopology-awaregraphattentionspectrallossdifferentiableconstructionsingle-imagereconstructionskeletonizationadversarialtraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that a 3D object skeleton—where the joints are and how they connect—can be recovered from a single ordinary 2D photograph by one differentiable network. It proposes Cortex-Synth, a pipeline that turns the image into a pseudo-3D point cloud via segmentation and depth estimation, encodes it with PointNet++, decodes candidate joint positions, then learns the graph of connections in a novel Differentiable Graph Construction Network. The topological part is the central novelty: connectivity is trained against a spectral loss on graph Laplacian eigenvalues and refined by hierarchical graph attention and adversarial pose discriminators. The paper reports large improvements over prior skeletonization methods on ShapeNet and Objaverse-XL, including 18.7 percent better joint position error, 27.3 percent better graph edit distance, and 42 percent fewer topological errors.

What carries the argument

The Differentiable Graph Construction Network (DGCN): an edge predictor A_ij = sigma(MLP_edge([f_i; f_j; ||x_i - x_j||])) trained with the spectral loss L_spectral = sum_k |lambda_k(L_pred) - lambda_k(L_gt)|^2 + alpha * tr(L_pred^T L_gt), where L = D - A is the graph Laplacian. This is the mechanism that carries the claim: it turns connectivity into a continuous parameter and gives gradients from topology back into the encoder and decoder.

What would settle it

Replace the MiDaS depth channel with ground-truth depth on ShapeNet test images and compare MPJPE and GED to the reported numbers; a large gap would show that depth estimation is the bottleneck. The experiment is feasible because ground-truth 3D models exist for the same images.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that skeleton extraction should be treated as a differentiable graph-learning problem rather than a geometric post-process. The DGCN learns the adjacency matrix directly from node features and joint distances, and the spectral loss forces the predicted Laplacian eigenvalues to match the ground-truth graph, making topology itself trainable. The paper reports that this joint optimization lowers MPJPE by 18.7 percent and GED by 27.3 percent on ShapeNet, raises topological fidelity, and cuts topological errors by 42 percent relative to prior skeletonization methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single 2D RGB image, after U-Net segmentation and MiDaS depth estimation, yields a pseudo-3D point cloud accurate enough to recover the object's 3D skeleton; the paper reports no error analysis of this depth assumption, so incorrect or occluded depth would make the skeleton geometry and connectivity unrecoverable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pipeline is end-to-end differentiable, so joint geometry and graph connectivity can be optimized with a single loss, removing the need for a separate non-differentiable skeletonization step.
  • Connectivity is predicted rather than imposed, so object categories without a fixed skeletal prior can be handled without redesigning the graph structure.
  • On the paper's reported numbers, robotic manipulation stands to benefit: the application section reports 23 percent better grasping success on articulated objects than geometry-only approaches.
  • Medical skeletonization from CT slices could preserve connectivity of structures like vertebrae, which the paper says is needed for surgical planning.
  • The spectral Laplacian loss gives a quantitative training signal for topology, potentially reducing manual rework in character rigging; the paper claims 75 percent less manual intervention in production pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the adjacency predictor uses only node features and Euclidean distances, the same DGCN head could be attached to any point-cloud encoder; the paper does not explore this transfer.
  • A controlled depth-noise experiment would tell whether the reported gains come from the topology learning itself or from the depth preprocessing; this is my inference, not the paper's claim.
  • The adaptive node-count mechanism hints at category-agnostic skeletons, but the stated degradation beyond 100 joints suggests the method is not yet scene-scale.
  • If the spectral loss transfers to other graph-output tasks, it could serve as a general regularizer for any network that must output connected structures, such as human pose or object part graphs.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Cortex-Synth, an end-to-end differentiable framework for predicting 3D skeleton geometry and topology from a single 2D image. The method combines a U-Net/MiDaS pseudo-3D point cloud generator, an enhanced PointNet++ encoder, a skeleton decoder, and a Differentiable Graph Construction Network with a spectral Laplacian loss, hierarchical graph attention, adversarial training, and adaptive skeleton complexity. The main claims are state-of-the-art results on ShapeNet and Objaverse: 18.7% improvement in MPJPE, 27.3% improvement in Graph Edit Distance, and 42% reduction in topological errors, plus several application-level improvements in robotics and medical imaging. The paper includes quantitative tables, ablations, and qualitative figures, but no training details, data splits, hyperparameters, code, or credible baseline references.

Significance. If the empirical claims were substantiated, a fully differentiable system that jointly optimizes skeleton geometry and topology from a single image would be a useful contribution to 3D shape understanding. The proposed architecture contains some plausible components: differentiable graph construction, a spectral loss, and multi-scale attention are reasonable ideas, and the paper explicitly targets a real gap (end-to-end skeleton synthesis). However, the significance cannot be assessed from the manuscript as written. The central evidence is quantitative, yet the experimental section is missing reproducibility essentials and the baseline citations do not correspond to verifiable published work. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, code, or data release, so the main contribution rests entirely on unverifiable tables and figures.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] The claimed state-of-the-art comparison is not verifiable. The baseline citations are not traceable to real publications: [8] attributes 'Point2Skeleton' to Nature Communications vol. 16 (2025) with placeholder authors, while the actual Point2Skeleton is Lin et al., CVPR 2021, a point-cloud method that does not report MPJPE or GED on ShapeNet; [9] cites 'SkeletonNet' to Physical Control Journal; [22] and [10] use generic venue/authors. Since Table 1 is the basis for the headline 18.7% and 27.3% improvements, these numbers are unsupported. The authors must compare against real, citable implementations with identical evaluation protocols, or remove the SOTA claims.
  2. [§4, Tables 1 and 2] No experimental protocol is reported. There are no dataset splits, annotation/inter-annotator agreement details, hyperparameters, optimizer settings, training epochs, compute resources, or error bars. Tables 1 and 2 report single numbers with no statistical significance or variance. This is a load-bearing omission because the central claim is empirical. Without these details and without code/data release, the quantitative results cannot be reproduced or independently checked.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] The spectral loss directly regresses predicted Laplacian eigenvalues to ground-truth eigenvalues: L_spectral = Σ |λ_k(L_pred) − λ_k(L_gt)|^2 + α·tr(L_pred^T L_gt). Any reported spectral consistency is therefore a fitting outcome of this loss, not an independent measure of topological generalization. The same applies to the adversarial loss (Eq. 5) and the attention losses, which are all trained directly against ground-truth skeletons. The paper needs to clarify which metrics are used for evaluation, ensure they are not identical to the training losses, and report performance on held-out categories or unseen topologies.
  4. [§3.1, Figure 1] The entire pipeline depends on a pseudo-3D point cloud generated by U-Net semantic segmentation and MiDaS depth estimation from a single 2D RGB image. No error analysis of the depth estimation is provided, and the model's sensitivity to depth inaccuracies or occlusions is not tested. This is a core modeling assumption: if the pseudo-3D point cloud is poor, the recovered skeleton geometry and topology cannot be reliable. The authors should include either a quantitative sensitivity analysis or a clear justification for why depth errors are tolerable.
  5. [§5 and §6] The application claims (23% grasping improvement, 75% reduction in manual intervention) are stated without any corresponding experiments or references to evaluations in this paper. Section 6 acknowledges limitations such as category-specific data requirements and degradation for more than 100 joints, but no failure-case analysis or scaling experiments are provided. These unsupported claims and admitted limitations further weaken confidence in the empirical contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Several citations in the abstract and introduction are placeholders or self-referential, e.g., [1,2,3] and [8,9] are used to support generic statements but do not point to real prior work. The writing would benefit from accurate citations throughout.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The trace term α·tr(L_pred^T L_gt) is not explained. What is its role? Also, α and K (the number of eigenvalues) are declared free parameters in the paper's own axiom ledger but never specified or ablated in the experiments.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The tables do not report units for MPJPE/GED, dataset version details, or the number of test samples. The TF scores in Table 2 for the 'w/o hierarchical attention' configuration (0.77) are lower than the 'Baseline' (0.80), but the text does not discuss this anomaly.
  4. [Figure 2] The qualitative figures show baseline skeletons, but the baseline images are not clearly attributed to the cited methods, and the comparison is not quantified. It would help to overlay the input image and provide error maps or confidence intervals.
  5. [References] Many references use placeholder author names such as 'A. Author', 'O. Learn', 'P. Skel', 'Q. Recons', and cite non-existent venues or generic URLs. This is a severe presentation issue and should be corrected entirely if the paper is resubmitted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Headline SOTA claims reduce to an internally fabricated comparison table; the method equations themselves are standard supervised losses.

  1. other [Section 4.2 'Quantitative Results', Table 1, and References [8]-[10], [22]]
    "Table 1 shows our method significantly outperforms existing approaches across all metrics on both ShapeNet and Objaverse datasets. ... We achieve 18.7 % improvement in MPJPE and 27.3 % in Graph Edit Distance compared to state-of-the-art methods [8, 9]. ... [8] O. Learn and P. Skel, 'Point2skeleton: Learning skeletal representations from point clouds,' Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2025."

    The paper's central empirical claim — state-of-the-art MPJPE, GED, and topological-error improvements — is derived solely from Table 1's comparison against 'previous approaches.' But those baselines are not drawn from any verifiable external evaluation: [8] is attributed to placeholder authors 'O. Learn and P. Skel' in a nonexistent Nature Communications article, while the actual Point2Skeleton (Lin et al., CVPR 2021) is separately cited in [14] and does not report MPJPE/GED on this protocol. References [9], [10], and [22] are similarly placeholder citations. Thus the comparison values are internal constructions of this paper, not independent inputs. The claimed improvement is therefore defined by the paper's own table rather than derived from external prior-art results; the 'prediction' o

full rationale

The core network equations (Eqs. 1-5) are standard supervised/regularized objectives: the spectral loss regresses predicted Laplacian eigenvalues to ground-truth eigenvalues, the adjacency is learned from features/distance, and GAT attention follows the published GAT formulation with a residual connection. Optimizing these losses is not itself circular — supervised training against ground-truth skeletons is the normal derivation chain, and reporting test-set metrics would be legitimate if the evaluation were externally grounded. The circularity is in the empirical validation layer: every headline improvement (18.7% MPJPE, 27.3% GED, 42% topological-error reduction) rests on Table 1, whose baseline entries are supported only by fabricated/placeholder references. The paper even contradicts itself by citing the real Point2Skeleton CVPR 2021 paper at [14] while attributing a different fake 'Point2Skeleton' to Nature Communications at [8]. No dataset splits, annotation protocol, hyperparameters, code, or data release are provided, so the benchmark cannot be independently checked. The Limitations section (Sec. 6) concedes category-specific data requirements but provides no failure analysis. For these reasons the central claim reduces to an internal, unverifiable comparison, warranting a high circularity score; however, the method's mathematical formulation itself is not circular, so the score is 7 rather than 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method is a supervised learning pipeline: everything is trained against ground-truth skeleton data. The listed free parameters are hyperparameters that are never specified. The axioms are unverified assumptions about the input representation, the spectral loss, and the datasets. The paper does not derive any of its claims from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (spectral loss weight)
    Eq. (1) includes alpha to balance eigenvalue matching and the Laplacian cross-term; its value is selected by hand and never reported.
  • K (number of Laplacian eigenvalues)
    Eq. (1) sums over the first K eigenvalues; K is not specified and affects the spectral loss.
  • structural entropy threshold
    Section 3.1/3.3 mentions adaptive node allocation based on structural entropy, but the threshold or mapping function is never defined; it controls output joint count and thus all metrics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A single 2D image plus U-Net segmentation and MiDaS depth estimation yields a pseudo-3D point cloud accurate enough for skeleton recovery.
    Section 3.1 and Figure 1 make this the sole geometric input; no validation of depth accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption The graph Laplacian eigenvalue spectrum is a sufficient descriptor of skeleton topology for the spectral loss to be meaningful.
    Eq. (1) compares predicted and ground-truth eigenvalues; the paper does not justify that spectral matching preserves the skeleton structure.
  • domain assumption ShapeNet and Objaverse-XL provide paired 2D images, 3D models, and skeleton ground truth with the stated annotations.
    Section 4.1 describes these datasets, but no details on the annotation protocol or splits are given, and the cited sources appear fabricated.
  • standard math Differentiable eigendecomposition of graph Laplacians is numerically stable for the architectures used.
    The spectral loss (Eq. 1) requires gradients through eigenvalues; this is possible for distinct eigenvalues but unstable for repeated ones, and no handling is mentioned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cortex-Synth: Differentiable Topology-Aware 3D Skeleton Synthesis with Hierarchical Graph Attention." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5NTCKZG

@misc{pith2026250906705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cortex-Synth: Differentiable Topology-Aware 3D Skeleton Synthesis with Hierarchical Graph Attention},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5NTCKZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06705}
}
read the original abstract

We present Cortex Synth, a novel end-to-end differentiable framework for joint 3D skeleton geometry and topology synthesis from single 2D images. Our architecture introduces three key innovations: (1) A hierarchical graph attention mechanism with multi-scale skeletal refinement, (2) Differentiable spectral topology optimization via Laplacian eigen decomposition, and (3) Adversarial geometric consistency training for pose structure alignment. The framework integrates four synergistic modules: a pseudo 3D point cloud generator, an enhanced PointNet encoder, a skeleton coordinate decoder, and a novel Differentiable Graph Construction Network (DGCN). Our experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art results with 18.7 percent improvement in MPJPE and 27.3 percent in Graph Edit Distance on ShapeNet, while reducing topological errors by 42 percent compared to previous approaches. The model's end-to-end differentiability enables applications in robotic manipulation, medical imaging, and automated character rigging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cortex-Synth architecture with hierarchical attention and spectral optimization. This diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative comparisons showing structural fidelity. (a) illustrates our model’s ability to maintain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Point2skeleton: Learning skeletal representations from point clouds,

    O. Learn and P. Skel, “Point2skeleton: Learning skeletal representations from point clouds,”Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [9]

    Skeletonnet: End-to-end learning of 3d skeleton from point clouds,

    Q. Recons and R. Struct, “Skeletonnet: End-to-end learning of 3d skeleton from point clouds,”Physical Control Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://lib.physcon.ru/doc?id= 0a328bd0f472

    work page 2025

  3. [22]

    Reartgs: Real-time articulated object generation from multi-view in- put,

    Q. Articulated and R. Kinem, “Reartgs: Real-time articulated object generation from multi-view in- put,” inProc. IROS, 2024, pp. 1–8

    work page 2024

  4. [10]

    Skdream: Skeleton- conditioned 3d shape generation,

    S. Dream and T. Gen, “Skdream: Skeleton- conditioned 3d shape generation,” inProc. NeurIPS, 2024, pp. 300–307

    work page 2024

  5. [1]

    Differentiable 2d-to- 3d skeleton synthesis,

    A. Author and B. Coauthor, “Differentiable 2d-to- 3d skeleton synthesis,”Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [2]

    Robotic ma- nipulation with learned skeletal priors,

    C. Contributor and D. Collaborator, “Robotic ma- nipulation with learned skeletal priors,” inProc. Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, 2024, pp. 100–107

    work page 2024

  7. [3]

    Adversarial learn- ing for 3d anatomical reconstruction,

    E. Researcher and F. Scientist, “Adversarial learn- ing for 3d anatomical reconstruction,”IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 112–120, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [4]

    Graph attention networks for spatiotemporal data analysis,

    G. Atten and H. Tion, “Graph attention networks for spatiotemporal data analysis,”MDPI Sensors, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 747, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [5]

    Adaptive complexity for 3d human pose estimation,

    I. Adaptive and J. Comp, “Adaptive complexity for 3d human pose estimation,” inProc. CVPR, 2024, pp. 200–207

    2024

  2. [6]

    A differentiable graph con- struction network for geometric learning,

    K. Graph and L. Net, “A differentiable graph con- struction network for geometric learning,”Engineer- ing Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2024

    2024

  3. [7]

    Enhanced pointnet++ for 3d object recognition,

    M. Point and N. Net, “Enhanced pointnet++ for 3d object recognition,” inProc. URSI Asia-Pacific Radio Science Conference, 2024, p. 1884. [On- line]. Available: https://www.ursi.org/proceedings/ procAT24/papers/1884.pdf

    2024

  4. [11]

    Deep learning for human pose estimation in medical images,

    U. Human and V. Pose, “Deep learning for human pose estimation in medical images,” inProc. MICCAI, 2024, p. 862. [Online]. Available: https:// papers.miccai.org/miccai-2024/681-Paper0862.html

    2024

  5. [12]

    3d skeleton extraction for character animation,

    W. Graphics and X. Anim, “3d skeleton extraction for character animation,” inProc. Int. Workshop on Advanced Image and Video Processing, 2025, p. 02022

    2025

  6. [13]

    Skeletal perception for autonomous robotics,

    Y. Robotics and Z. Control, “Skeletal perception for autonomous robotics,”OpenReview, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=YYTUrlcts9

    2025

  7. [14]

    Recon- struction inconsistencies in 3d skeletoniza- tion,

    A. Data and B. Inconsistencies, “Recon- struction inconsistencies in 3d skeletoniza- tion,”Scribd, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.scribd.com/document/821943119/ Lin-Point2Skeleton-Learning-Skeletal-Representations-From-Point-Clouds-CVPR-2021-Paper

    2021

  8. [15]

    Attention-based graph neural networks for structural prediction,

    C. Attent and D. Graph, “Attention-based graph neural networks for structural prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.05742, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2008.05742

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    On the ge- ometry and topology of differentiable graph models,

    G. Topology and H. Geom, “On the ge- ometry and topology of differentiable graph models,”Unive. It. Archive, 2020. [On- line]. Available: https://iris.unive.it/retrieve/ e4239dde-a010-7180-e053-3705fe0a3322/2002. 04999.pdf

    2020

  10. [18]

    Adversarial train- ing for realistic 3d skeleton generation,

    I. Adversarial and J. Gen, “Adversarial train- ing for realistic 3d skeleton generation,” in Proc. MICCAI, 2024, pp. 1–10. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/ ∼hling/ publication/skeleton-3d-miccai24.pdf

    2024

  11. [19]

    Adaptive skeleton complexity in differentiable reconstruction,

    K. Entropy and L. Complexity, “Adaptive skeleton complexity in differentiable reconstruction,”Elec- tronic Research Archive, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 569–583, 2024. 6

    2024

  12. [20]

    Robust 3d skeleton extrac- tion using medial axis transform,

    M. MAT and N. Thin, “Robust 3d skeleton extrac- tion using medial axis transform,”Nature Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Hierarchical feature learning for point cloud processing,

    O. Point and P. Proc, “Hierarchical feature learning for point cloud processing,” inProc. ICIP, 2024, pp. 100–107

    2024

  14. [23]

    Topogdn: A graph deep learning network for multivariate time series,

    S. Time and T. Social, “Topogdn: A graph deep learning network for multivariate time series,”MDPI Sensors, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 318, 2024

    2024

  15. [24]

    Geosep-pointnet++: Geometry-aware feature separation for point clouds,

    U. Geom and V. Point, “Geosep-pointnet++: Geometry-aware feature separation for point clouds,” inProc. ICPR, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  16. [25]

    Enhanced pooling meth- ods for hierarchical point cloud processing,

    W. Enhance and X. Pool, “Enhanced pooling meth- ods for hierarchical point cloud processing,” inProc. SIGGRAPH, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  17. [26]

    Multi-scale attention for 2d-to-3d object reconstruction,

    Y. Fusion and Z. Multi, “Multi-scale attention for 2d-to-3d object reconstruction,” inProc. ICASSP, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  18. [27]

    Joint optimization of topol- ogy and geometry in 3d reconstruction,

    A. Topo and B. Geom, “Joint optimization of topol- ogy and geometry in 3d reconstruction,” inProc. SIGGRAPH, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  19. [28]

    Depth-aware semantic seg- mentation for 3d reconstruction,

    C. Depth and D. Seg, “Depth-aware semantic seg- mentation for 3d reconstruction,” inProc. ISBI, 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  20. [30]

    Graph attention networks (gats) for differentiable graph construction,

    G. Graph and H. Constr, “Graph attention networks (gats) for differentiable graph construction,”Papers with Code, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //paperswithcode.com/method/gat

    2024

  21. [31]

    Graph-attention- networks: An open-source implementation,

    I. Open and J. Source, “Graph-attention- networks: An open-source implementation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/locuoco/ graph-attention-networks

    2024

  22. [32]

    Shapenet: A large dataset of 3d models,

    K. ShapeNet, “Shapenet: A large dataset of 3d models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //shapenet.org

    2024

  23. [33]

    Objaverse-xl: A large-scale dataset for 3d object understanding,

    L. Pose and M. Struct, “Objaverse-xl: A large-scale dataset for 3d object understanding,”LAION Blog,

  24. [34]

    Evaluating the accuracy of cloud-based 3d human pose estimation,

    N. Dataset and O. Eval, “Evaluating the accuracy of cloud-based 3d human pose estimation,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 2024, pp. 6–15. [Online]. Avail- able: https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume15No4/ Paper 6-Evaluating the Accuracy of Cloud b...

    2024

  25. [35]

    Large-scale 3d object datasets for machine learning,

    P. Large and Q. Scale, “Large-scale 3d object datasets for machine learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07160, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/pdf/2112.07160v1.pdf

    2021 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Available: https://laion.ai/blog/ objaverse-xl/

    [Online]. Available: https://laion.ai/blog/ objaverse-xl/

  27. [37]

    Generative models for realis- tic 3d content creation,

    T. Gen and U. Recon, “Generative models for realis- tic 3d content creation,” inProc. SIGGRAPH, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  28. [38]

    3d medical skeleton extraction from ct scans,

    V. Med and W. Img, “3d medical skeleton extraction from ct scans,” inProc. ISBI, 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  29. [39]

    High-quality annotations for 3d shapenet models,

    R. Annot and S. Validate, “High-quality annotations for 3d shapenet models,” inProc. NeurIPS, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=zf777Odl6J

    2024

  30. [40]

    Metrics for evaluating 3d skeletonization algorithms,

    Z. Metric and A. Eval, “Metrics for evaluating 3d skeletonization algorithms,” inProc. ACM Conf. on Computing Frontiers, 2024, pp. 2–7. [Online]. Available: https://openaccess.cms-conferences. org/publications/book/978-1-958651-99-5/article/ 978-1-958651-99-5 2

    2024

  31. [41]

    Ablation study on pointnet-based feature extraction for medical im- ages,

    B. Ablation and C. Study, “Ablation study on pointnet-based feature extraction for medical im- ages,” inProc. SPIE Medical Imaging, 2024, p. 3036825

    2024

  32. [42]

    Accurate anatomical re- construction from volumetric ct data,

    X. Anatomy and Y. CT, “Accurate anatomical re- construction from volumetric ct data,” inProc. MIC- CAI, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  33. [43]

    Self-supervised skeleton completion for vascular structure analysis,

    F. Vascular and G. Ortho, “Self-supervised skeleton completion for vascular structure analysis,” inProc. ISBI, 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  34. [44]

    3d anatomical modeling for surgical planning and simulation,

    H. Surg and I. Plan, “3d anatomical modeling for surgical planning and simulation,” inProc. MICCAI, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  35. [45]

    Qualitative analysis of 3d skeleton reconstruction methods,

    D. Qualit and E. Analysis, “Qualitative analysis of 3d skeleton reconstruction methods,” inProc. CVPR, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  36. [46]

    Enhancing robotic grasp- ing with object skeletal understanding,

    L. Robot and M. Grasp, “Enhancing robotic grasp- ing with object skeletal understanding,” inProc. ICRA, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  37. [47]

    Manipulation of articulated and complex objects in robotics,

    N. Articulated and O. Complex, “Manipulation of articulated and complex objects in robotics,” BioMed Journal Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10,

  38. [48]

    Impact of 3d re- construction on clinical decision-making,

    J. Clinical and K. Decision, “Impact of 3d re- construction on clinical decision-making,”Anatomy Pubs, vol. 25573, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024. 7

    2024

  39. [49]

    Integrating large language models for semantic 3d understanding,

    R. LLM and S. Semantic, “Integrating large language models for semantic 3d understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13375, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13375

    2023 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Efficient content creation for virtual environments with 3d skeletons,

    T. Virtual and U. Environ, “Efficient content creation for virtual environments with 3d skeletons,” inProc. CVPR, 2025, p. 35139. [Online]. Available: https://cvpr.thecvf.com/virtual/2025/poster/35139

    2025

  41. [51]

    Available: https://journals.uob.edu

    [Online]. Available: https://journals.uob.edu. ly/BUMEJ/article/view/7138

  42. [52]

    Self-supervised learning for medical image skeletonization,

    P. Self and Q. Super, “Self-supervised learning for medical image skeletonization,”World Scientific Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 500044, 2025

    2025

  43. [55]

    Temporal skeleton syn- thesis and multi-modal fusion,

    V. Temporal and W. Multi, “Temporal skeleton syn- thesis and multi-modal fusion,”Papers with Code,

  44. [56]

    Available: https://paperswithcode

    [Online]. Available: https://paperswithcode. com/paper/differentiable-graph-module-dgm-graph 8

  45. [2022]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/ 2207.05493.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/ 2207.05493.pdf

    arXiv

  46. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.15640

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.15640

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.