Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

BlanketGen2-Fit3D: Synthetic Blanket Augmentation Towards Improving Real-World In-Bed Blanket Occluded Human Pose Estimation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Synthetic blanket augmentation improves real-world in-bed pose estimation: 2.3% PCK gain on covered SLP test set.

desk verdict A useful new dataset and a plausible transfer result, but the headline 2.3% PCK gain is confounded by a doubling of training data, so the claim that synthetic blankets specifically drive the improvement is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12318 v1 pith:S7AQWB5G submitted 2025-01-21 cs.CV

Tamás Karácsony , João Carmona , João Paulo Silva Cunha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords humanposeestimationsyntheticdataaugmentationblanketocclusionin-bedmonitoringclothsimulationSMPLmeshViTPoseRGBimages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's central claim is that fine-tuning a pose-estimation model on synthetic blanket-occluded images improves accuracy on real-world images where a person in bed is covered by an actual blanket. To test this, the authors build BlanketGen2-Fit3D, a 1,217,312-frame augmentation of the Fit3D fitness dataset in which photorealistic, physics-simulated blankets are rendered from ground-truth SMPL body meshes and composited over the original frames. A ViTPose-B model fine-tuned on the mixed clean-plus-synthetic data reaches 0.977 PCK on the synthetic occluded test set versus 0.933 for the clean-only baseline, and on the real SLP covered test set it improves PCK by an absolute 2.3 percentage points (0.313 to 0.336) while reducing NME. If the improvement is caused by the blanket content and not merely by the larger training set, the result offers a practical route to in-bed clinical monitoring without costly real blanket-annotated data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is BlanketGen2, a two-stage synthetic blanket generator. Stage one runs a physics-based cloth simulation in Blender: a blanket mesh interacts with the ground-truth SMPL body mesh of each Fit3D frame and a simulated bed surface, producing baked animations. Stage two renders those baked blankets with a photorealistic woven texture (two perpendicular distorted sinusoidal patterns with bump mapping plus a checkerboard) and transparent backgrounds, so they can be composited onto the original frames. Separating simulation from rendering lets the authors reuse each simulation across the four Fit3D camera viewpoints and swap textures without rerunning physics. The evaluation vehicle is the ViTPose-B architecture: with the backbone frozen, only the deconvolutional head is fine-tuned on Fit3D (baseline FT-Fit3D) or on Fit3D plus BlanketGen2-Fit3D (FT-Mixed); unfreezing the backbone yields the BB variants, which fit the synthetic distribution better but transfer less to SLP.

What would settle it

Train a model exactly like FT-Mixed but with the synthetic blanket frames replaced by an equal number of original Fit3D frames (for example, repeating or shuffling Fit3D to double its size), and compare SLP-cover PCK; if this control matches or beats FT-Mixed, the blanket-specific claim fails, whereas a clear FT-Mixed win would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a pose estimator fine-tuned on a mix of clean and synthetically blanket-occluded frames generalizes better to real blankets than the same estimator fine-tuned on clean frames alone. The authors report this on two test sets: on the synthetic BlanketGen2-Fit3D test set, the mixed model (FT-Mixed) reaches 0.977 PCK and 0.149 NME versus 0.933 and 0.230 for the clean-only model (FT-Fit3D), a 4.4-point absolute PCK gain; on the real-world SLP set with blankets (SLP-cover), FT-Mixed achieves 0.336 PCK versus 0.313 for FT-Fit3D, a 2.3-point absolute gain with NME dropping from 1.179 to 1.115. On unoccluded sets the two models stay near parity (0.984 vs 0.983 PCK on Fit3D), so the authors argue the augmentation helps specifically under occlusion. They interpret the result as evidence that dynamic deformations of a simulated blanket teach visual features that transfer across the synthetic-to-real gap, making synthetic blanket augmentation a useful tool for in-bed RGB pose estimation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the synthetic blanket content causes the improvement rests on an uncontrolled comparison: the mixed model saw roughly twice as many training frames as the baseline, so the extra data alone could explain the gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A head-only fine-tuned ViTPose-B, trained on the mixed dataset, maintains near-parity on unoccluded Fit3D (0.984 vs 0.983 PCK) while gaining under occlusion, so synthetic blanket augmentation can be added without hurting normal-case performance.
  • Because the baked .blend files are released, new blanket textures and render settings can be produced without rerunning cloth simulation, enabling cheap dataset expansion or online texture augmentation.
  • The transfer to real blankets on SLP, despite static scenes and a different skeleton format, suggests the method partially closes the synthetic-to-real domain gap for in-bed pose estimation.
  • Freezing the backbone preserves the occlusion robustness from the pretrained ViTPose; unfreezing improves synthetic benchmarks but degrades real-world SLP performance, so head-only fine-tuning is the safer transfer recipe.
  • The pipeline generalizes to any HPE dataset with dense mesh ground truth (for example, SMPL-X), so the same augmentation could be applied to diverse pose distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 2.3-point SLP-cover gain may be partly or wholly due to FT-Mixed seeing roughly twice as many frames as FT-Fit3D; the paper does not include a control that doubles Fit3D data alone, so the blanket-specific effect is not yet isolated.
  • If the blanket content is what matters, an ablation varying texture realism (plain versus woven) would quantify how much photorealism contributes relative to the occlusion geometry itself.
  • The paired clean and occluded frames in Fit3D and BlanketGen2-Fit3D could support explicit occlusion-invariant or contrastive training objectives beyond simple data mixing.
  • A similar augmentation could be tested on depth-image in-bed pose models, where earlier work with synthetic blankets showed mixed real-plus-synthetic training winning, connecting RGB and depth lines of evidence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces BlanketGen2, an improved synthetic blanket generation pipeline, and uses it to create BG2-Fit3D, a roughly 1.22M-frame augmentation of Fit3D with rendered blankets. The authors fine-tune ViTPose-B (head-only and full fine-tuning) on either Fit3D alone or Fit3D plus BG2-Fit3D and evaluate on Fit3D, BG2-Fit3D, and the real SLP dataset with and without blanket cover. The central claim is that synthetic blanket augmentation improves real-world blanket-occluded pose estimation, with reported gains of +0.044 PCK on the synthetic BG2-Fit3D test set and +0.023 PCK on SLP-cover.

Significance. If the causal attribution were supported, the work would offer a practical, shareable route to reducing the data scarcity problem in in-bed HPE: the BG2-Fit3D dataset, the separated cloth-simulation/rendering pipeline, and the released .blend files are concrete assets, and the benchmark on SLP addresses a real clinical scenario. The paper also includes an honest discussion of domain shift and joint-format differences. The main weakness is that the headline comparison does not isolate the effect of synthetic blankets from training-data quantity, reweighted sequence distribution, and optimization budget, so the significance of the claimed improvement is currently not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-D1 and Table II] The central comparison FT-Mixed vs. FT-Fit3D is confounded by dataset size and training budget. FT-Mixed is trained on Fit3D (1,782,318 frames) plus BG2-Fit3D (1,217,312 frames), about 3.0M frames, while FT-Fit3D sees 1,782,318 frames; under the same 20-epoch schedule FT-Mixed therefore receives substantially more gradient updates. In addition, Table I shows that alternating sequences are excluded from BG2-Fit3D, so the combined training distribution reweights the original Fit3D sequences. The reported gains on SLP-cover (+0.023 PCK) and BG2-Fit3D (+0.044 PCK) could thus be caused by more data, more optimization steps, or a changed sequence distribution rather than by the synthetic blanket content. An equal-data control is required, for example training a third model on Fit3D with the original frames duplicated or oversampled to match the 3.0M-frame budget, or training FT-Mixed on a matched-size subset, with early stopping held fixed.
  2. [Tables II and III] All reported numbers come from a single training run per condition, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For the main real-world result, a difference of 0.023 PCK (SLP-cover) is small relative to the run-to-run variability that is typical for fine-tuning ViTPose on datasets of this size; the negative result on SLP-uncover (-0.012 PCK) is consistent with the difference being noise. The authors should run multiple seeds (at least three, preferably five) and report mean and standard deviation for FT-Fit3D and FT-Mixed, and ideally for the equal-data control as well.
  3. [Table III and Section V-B] The backbone-finetuned comparison, which uses the same confounded training protocol, does not corroborate the real-world claim as strongly as the text suggests: on SLP-cover, BB-Mixed improves over BB-Fit3D by only +0.013 PCK and is essentially unchanged in NME (-0.001), whereas on SLP-uncover BB-Mixed is worse by -0.012 PCK and +0.044 NME. The discussion should account for this inconsistency, and any causal claim about synthetic blankets should be based on a protocol that is robust across both head-only and full fine-tuning regimes.
  4. [Section III-D2] The joint-format offset between SLP and Fit3D is acknowledged, but the assertion that this offset 'does not substantially affect intra-dataset architectural comparisons' is not supported by any quantification. Because the hip offset is systematic and the evaluated models may distribute their errors differently, the paper should either report per-joint PCK/NME on SLP or show that the relative ranking is unchanged under a plausible range of joint-matching corrections.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Table I / Section IV-A] The dataset size is given as 1,217,312 frames in the abstract and Table I but as 1,214,812 frames in Section IV-A; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract says 'the later improved pose estimation'; 'latter' is intended, and the term 'fine-trained' is used throughout where 'fine-tuned' would be clearer.
  3. [Section IV-A] The phrase 'previous state of the art' in the discussion of Figure 7 refers to the authors' own BlanketGen pipeline; the wording should be 'our previous pipeline' to avoid confusion with an external state of the art.
  4. [Section V-C] There is a typo in 'comaprision' (comparison), and the sentence about 'MAE pretaining' should be corrected.
  5. [Section III-C] The statement that ViTPose's MAE pretraining uses 'a combined dataset of MS COCO and AI Challenger' should be checked against the ViTPose paper, since the cited reference may describe a different or broader pretraining setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the synthetic augmentation claim is tested on held-out synthetic subjects and on the external SLP dataset, not defined into existence.

full rationale

The central claim is empirical: FT-Mixed is trained on Fit3D plus BG2-Fit3D and then evaluated on held-out BG2-Fit3D subjects and on the external real-world SLP dataset; neither evaluation is used to fit a parameter, so no result is equal to an input by construction. The paper acknowledges the SLP joint-format offset, but that offset affects both compared models equally and does not make the comparison circular. The main threat to the attribution is experimental rather than circular: FT-Mixed sees roughly 3.0M training frames versus 1.78M for FT-Fit3D under the same epoch budget, and there is no equal-data control or repeated runs, so the +0.023 PCK on SLP-cover may be caused by data quantity or optimization steps instead of blanket content. A confound of this kind is a validity concern, not a self-definitional reduction. Self-citations to the prior BlanketGen pipeline [8] and BlanketSet [34] describe prior method artifacts and are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as substitutes for the present evaluation. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The central claim is empirical and does not rest on invented entities or fitted constants. The key unstated premises are the transferability of synthetic blankets, the comparability of SLP annotations, and the attribution of gains to blanket content rather than data volume.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Synthetic blankets rendered by BlanketGen2 are a sufficient proxy for real blanket occlusion in training.
    The claim of transferability to SLP rests on this; Section IV-B notes a substantial remaining distribution shift.
  • domain assumption The systematic offset between Fit3D and SLP joint annotations does not differentially affect the compared models.
    Section III-D2 states the hip joints are annotated differently, and the authors argue this does not affect intra-dataset comparisons; if the offset interacted with occlusion, the 2.3% PCK gain could be artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper The improvement from FT-Mixed over FT-Fit3D is attributable to blanket augmentation rather than dataset size.
    No control with doubled Fit3D data alone is provided, so this assumption is needed to interpret the measured gains as blanket-specific.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BlanketGen2-Fit3D: Synthetic Blanket Augmentation Towards Improving Real-World In-Bed Blanket Occluded Human Pose Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7AQWB5G

@misc{pith2026250112318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BlanketGen2-Fit3D: Synthetic Blanket Augmentation Towards Improving Real-World In-Bed Blanket Occluded Human Pose Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7AQWB5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12318}
}
read the original abstract

Human Pose Estimation (HPE) from monocular RGB images is crucial for clinical in-bed skeleton-based action recognition, however, it poses unique challenges for HPE models due to the frequent presence of blankets occluding the person, while labeled HPE data in this scenario is scarce. To address this we introduce BlanketGen2-Fit3D (BG2-Fit3D), an augmentation of Fit3D dataset that contains 1,217,312 frames with synthetic photo-realistic blankets. To generate it we used BlanketGen2, our new and improved version of our BlanketGen pipeline that simulates synthetic blankets using ground-truth Skinned Multi-Person Linear model (SMPL) meshes and then renders them as transparent images that can be layered on top of the original frames. This dataset was used in combination with the original Fit3D to finetune the ViTPose-B HPE model, to evaluate synthetic blanket augmentation effectiveness. The trained models were further evaluated on a real-world blanket occluded in-bed HPE dataset (SLP dataset). Comparing architectures trained on only Fit3D with the ones trained with our synthetic blanket augmentation the later improved pose estimation performance on BG2-Fit3D, the synthetic blanket occluded dataset significantly to (0.977 Percentage of Correct Keypoints (PCK), 0.149 Normalized Mean Error (NME)) with an absolute 4.4% PCK increase. Furthermore, the test results on SLP demonstrated the utility of synthetic data augmentation by improving performance by an absolute 2.3% PCK, on real-world images with the poses occluded by real blankets. These results show synthetic blanket augmentation has the potential to improve in-bed blanket occluded HPE from RGB images. The dataset as well as the code will be made available to the public.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left: different stages of the BlanketGen2 pipeline with the improvements introduced in this paper. On the right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The scene from BlanketGen2-Fit3D, the four big [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the BlanketGen and BlanketGen2 data processing pipelines, highlighting the enhanced efficiency and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The blanket texture used in the old BlanketGen pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) A frame from SLP, the black and white circles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Four sequences from BlanketGen2-Fit3D, representing the dynamics of the simulated blankets during distinct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparing synthetic blanket occluded frames from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vitpose: Simple vision transformer baselines for human pose estimation,

    Y . Xu, J. Zhang, Q. Zhang, and D. Tao, “Vitpose: Simple vision transformer baselines for human pose estimation,” 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Hybrik: A hybrid analytical-neural inverse kinematics solution for 3d human pose and shape estimation,

    J. Li, C. Xu, Z. Chen, S. Bian, L. Yang, and C. Lu, “Hybrik: A hybrid analytical-neural inverse kinematics solution for 3d human pose and shape estimation,” in CVPR, June 2021, pp. 3383–3393

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Rtmpose: Real-time multi-person pose estimation based on mmpose,

    T. Jiang, P. Lu, L. Zhang, N. Ma, R. Han, C. Lyu, Y . Li, and K. Chen, “Rtmpose: Real-time multi-person pose estimation based on mmpose,”

    work page

  4. [4]

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

    Z. Li, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, S. Xu, and Y . Yan, “Cliff: Carrying location information in full frames into human pose and shape estimation,” 8

    work page

  5. [5]

    Deep learning methods for single camera based clinical in-bed movement action recognition,

    T. Kar ´acsony, L. A. Jeni, F. De la Torre, and J. P. S. Cunha, “Deep learning methods for single camera based clinical in-bed movement action recognition,” Image and Vision Computing , vol. 143, p. 104928, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bedlam: A synthetic dataset of bodies exhibiting detailed lifelike animated motion,

    M. J. Black, P. Patel, J. Tesch, and J. Yang, “Bedlam: A synthetic dataset of bodies exhibiting detailed lifelike animated motion,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2023, pp. 8726–8737

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    AGORA: Avatars in geography optimized for regression analysis,

    P. Patel, C.-H. P. Huang, J. Tesch, D. T. Hoffmann, S. Tripathi, and M. J. Black, “AGORA: Avatars in geography optimized for regression analysis,” in IEEE/CVF CVPR, Jun. 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Blanketgen - a synthetic blanket occlusion augmentation pipeline for motion capture datasets,

    J. Carmona, T. Kar ´acsony, and J. P. S. Cunha, “Blanketgen - a synthetic blanket occlusion augmentation pipeline for motion capture datasets,” 2023 IEEE 7th Portuguese Meeting on Bioengineering, ENBENG 2023 , pp. 112–115, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Recovering accurate 3d human pose in the wild using imus and a moving camera,

    T. von Marcard, R. Henschel, M. Black, B. Rosenhahn, and G. Pons- Moll, “Recovering accurate 3d human pose in the wild using imus and a moving camera,” in ECCV, vol. 10, sep 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Aifit: Automatic 3d human-interpretable feedback models for fitness training,

    M. Fieraru, M. Zanfir, S.-C. Pirlea, V . Olaru, and C. Sminchisescu, “Aifit: Automatic 3d human-interpretable feedback models for fitness training,” in The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Simultaneously-collected multimodal lying pose dataset: Enabling in- bed human pose monitoring,

    S. Liu, X. Huang, N. Fu, C. Li, Z. Su, and S. Ostadabbas, “Simultaneously-collected multimodal lying pose dataset: Enabling in- bed human pose monitoring,” ”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. ”, vol. 45, no. 01, pp. 1106–1118, jan 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    The ikea asm dataset: Understanding people assembling furniture through actions, objects and pose,

    Y . Ben-Shabat, X. Yu, F. Saleh, D. Campbell, C. Rodriguez-Opazo, H. Li, and S. Gould, “The ikea asm dataset: Understanding people assembling furniture through actions, objects and pose,” 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Behave: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions,

    B. L. Bhatnagar, X. Xie, I. Petrov, C. Sminchisescu, C. Theobalt, and G. Pons-Moll, “Behave: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, jun 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    HuMMan: Multi-modal 4d human dataset for versatile sensing and modeling,

    Z. Cai, D. Ren, A. Zeng, Z. Lin, T. Yu, W. Wang, X. Fan, Y . Gao, Y . Yu, L. Pan, F. Hong, M. Zhang, C. C. Loy, L. Yang, and Z. Liu, “HuMMan: Multi-modal 4d human dataset for versatile sensing and modeling,” in 17th European Conference on Computer Vision, Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Human3.6m: Large scale datasets and predictive methods for 3d human sensing in natural environments,

    C. Ionescu, D. Papava, V . Olaru, and C. Sminchisescu, “Human3.6m: Large scale datasets and predictive methods for 3d human sensing in natural environments,” ”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. ” , vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1325–1339, jul 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Ai choreographer: Music conditioned 3d dance generation with aist++,

    R. Li, S. Yang, D. A. Ross, and A. Kanazawa, “Ai choreographer: Music conditioned 3d dance generation with aist++,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , October 2021, pp. 13 401–13 412

    2021

  9. [17]

    Learning complex 3d human self-contact,

    M. Fieraru, M. Zanfir, E. Oneata, A.-I. Popa, V . Olaru, and C. Smin- chisescu, “Learning complex 3d human self-contact,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1343–1351

    2021

  10. [18]

    Three-dimensional reconstruction of human interactions,

    ——, “Three-dimensional reconstruction of human interactions,” in The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Humaneva: Synchronized video and motion capture dataset and baseline algorithm for evaluation of articulated human motion,

    L. Sigal, A. O. Balan, and M. J. Black, “Humaneva: Synchronized video and motion capture dataset and baseline algorithm for evaluation of articulated human motion,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 87, pp. 4–27, 3 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll ´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in ECCV, 2014, pp. 740–755

    2014

  13. [21]

    2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis,

    M. Andriluka, L. Pishchulin, P. Gehler, and B. Schiele, “2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Learning effective human pose esti- mation from inaccurate annotation,

    S. Johnson and M. Everingham, “Learning effective human pose esti- mation from inaccurate annotation,” in Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2011 , 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Crowdpose: Efficient crowded scenes pose estimation and a new benchmark,

    J. Li, C. Wang, H. Zhu, Y . Mao, H.-S. Fang, and C. Lu, “Crowdpose: Efficient crowded scenes pose estimation and a new benchmark,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00324, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pose2seg: Detection free human instance segmentation,

    S.-H. Zhang, R. Li, X. Dong, P. Rosin, Z. Cai, X. Han, D. Yang, H. Huang, and S.-M. Hu, “Pose2seg: Detection free human instance segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Synthesizing training images for boosting human 3d pose estimation,

    W. Chen, H. Wang, Y . Li, H. Su, Z. Wang, C. Tu, D. Lischinski, D. Cohen-Or, and B. Chen, “Synthesizing training images for boosting human 3d pose estimation,” in 3D Vision (3DV), 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Playing for 3d human recovery,

    Z. Cai, M. Zhang, J. Ren, C. Wei, D. Ren, Z. Lin, H. Zhao, L. Yang, and Z. Liu, “Playing for 3d human recovery,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07588, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Learning from synthetic humans,

    G. Varol, J. Romero, X. Martin, N. Mahmood, M. J. Black, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Learning from synthetic humans,” in CVPR, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Monocular 3d human pose estimation in the wild using improved cnn supervision,

    D. Mehta, H. Rhodin, D. Casas, P. Fua, O. Sotnychenko, W. Xu, and C. Theobalt, “Monocular 3d human pose estimation in the wild using improved cnn supervision,” in 3DV, oct 2017, pp. 506–516. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/3DV .2017.00064

    2017

  21. [29]

    Single-shot multi-person 3d pose estimation from monocular rgb,

    D. Mehta, O. Sotnychenko, F. Mueller, W. Xu, S. Sridhar, G. Pons-Moll, and C. Theobalt, “Single-shot multi-person 3d pose estimation from monocular rgb,” in 3D Vision (3DV), 2018 Sixth International Conference on . IEEE, sep 2018. [Online]. Available: http://gvv.mpi-inf.mpg.de...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Mould- ing humans: Non-parametric 3d human shape estimation from single images,

    V . Gabeur, J.-S. Franco, X. Martin, C. Schmid, and G. Rogez, “Mould- ing humans: Non-parametric 3d human shape estimation from single images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , October 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Patient mocap: Human pose estimation under blanket oc- clusion for hospital monitoring applications,

    F. Achilles, A.-E. Ichim, H. Coskun, F. Tombari, S. Noachtar, and N. Navab, “Patient mocap: Human pose estimation under blanket oc- clusion for hospital monitoring applications,” in MICCAI, Cham, 2016, pp. 491–499

    2016

  24. [32]

    Depth-based in-bed human pose estimation with synthetic dataset generation and deep keypoint estimation,

    S. Ochi and J. Miura, “Depth-based in-bed human pose estimation with synthetic dataset generation and deep keypoint estimation,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2022 Workshops , L. Karlinsky, T. Michaeli, JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 11 and K. Nishino, E...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Bodypressure - inferring body pose and contact pressure from a depth image,

    H. M. Clever, P. L. Grady, G. Turk, and C. C. Kemp, “Bodypressure - inferring body pose and contact pressure from a depth image,” ”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. ”, vol. 45, no. 01, pp. 137–153, jan 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Blanketset - a clinical real-world in-bed action recognition and qualitative semi-synchronised motion capture dataset,

    J. Carmona, T. Kar ´acsony, and J. P. S. Cunha, “Blanketset - a clinical real-world in-bed action recognition and qualitative semi-synchronised motion capture dataset,” 2023 IEEE 7th Portuguese Meeting on Bioengi- neering, ENBENG 2023 , pp. 116–119, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    [Online]

    Blender Online Community, Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package, Blender Foundation, Stichting Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.blender.org

    2018

  28. [36]

    Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ai challenger : A large-scale dataset for going deeper in image understanding,

    J. Wu, H. Zheng, B. Zhao, Y . Li, B. Yan, R. Liang, W. Wang, S. Zhou, G. Lin, Y . Fu, Y . Wang, and Y . Wang, “Ai challenger : A large-scale dataset for going deeper in image understanding,” Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo , vol. 2019-July, p...

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and benchmark,

    M. Contributors, “Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and benchmark,” https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmpose, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Clustered pose and nonlinear ap- pearance models for human pose estimation

    S. Johnson and M. Everingham, “Clustered pose and nonlinear ap- pearance models for human pose estimation.” in bmvc, vol. 2, no. 4. Aberystwyth, UK, 2010, p. 5. VIII. B IOGRAPHY SECTION Tam´as Kar ´acsony is a Ph.D. candidate in the Carnegie Mellon Portugal affiliated Ph.D. (C...

    2018

  32. [2022]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00571v1

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00571v1

    arXiv

  33. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07399

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07399

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.