Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Style4D-Bench: A Benchmark Suite for 4D Stylization

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces Style4D-Bench, the first benchmark for 4D stylization (artistic style applied to dynamic 3D scenes), and Style4D, a 4D Gaussian Splatting method that tops nearly all twelve metrics and wins the user study.

desk verdict A useful first benchmark and a plausible baseline, but the evaluation protocol is not validated against human judgment and the headline 'SOTA' claim outruns Table 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19243 v1 pith:U3AJ6QSM submitted 2025-08-26 cs.CV

Beiqi Chen , Shuai Shao , Haitang Feng , Jianhuang Lai , Jianlou Si , Guangcong Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 4DstylizationGaussianSplattingstyletransferbenchmarksuitetemporalconsistencymulti-viewdynamicscenerenderingper-GaussianMLP
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

4D stylization — transferring an artistic style onto a dynamic 3D scene so the style holds across time and viewpoint — has had no shared dataset, task definition, or evaluation standard. This paper tries to supply all three with Style4D-Bench, a suite built from high-resolution dynamic scenes, a twelve-metric protocol spanning image quality, aesthetics, temporal stability, multi-view consistency, style fidelity, and content preservation, plus a 34-participant user study. To make the suite usable immediately, it also proposes Style4D, a method built on 4D Gaussian Splatting that keeps geometry fixed and lets lightweight per-Gaussian networks control appearance over space and time; on the benchmark it reports the best scores on nearly all metrics and wins the user study. If the benchmark is adopted, future 4D stylization work can be compared directly instead of judged by ad-hoc frame-wise losses or informal preference polls.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The Style Gaussian Representation: every Gaussian in the 4DGS scene carries a two-layer MLP with four hidden units that receives the time step and the ray-Gaussian intersection depth and outputs a per-Gaussian color increment and opacity change, so appearance is controllable over space and time while the geometry network from the first stage stays frozen — reducing stylization to a per-Gaussian fitting problem, which is what buys multi-view and temporal consistency. The Holistic Geometry-Preserved Style Transfer (HGST) module: an encoder-transformer-decoder stylization network that fuses content and style features with a multi-channel correlation, then enfo

What would settle it

Correlate the twelve metric scores with the 34-participant preference percentages computed from the paper's own tables, method by method and scene by scene. If warp loss, UIQM, or Qalign rank the four methods differently from the human votes — or correlate weakly — the benchmark would not reflect human perception and the state-of-the-art ranking would lose its anchor. The needed numbers are all in the paper, so the test is a spreadsheet calculation, not a new experiment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 4D stylization should be decomposed into geometry learning and style learning: a pre-trained 4D Gaussian Splatting captures the dynamic structure, and a separate style stage modulates only color and opacity. Its Style Gaussian Representation attaches a tiny MLP to every Gaussian — inputs are the time step and ray-Gaussian intersection depth, outputs a color increment and opacity adjustment — so style varies smoothly in space and time without disturbing the learned geometry. Stylized training frames come from a Holistic Geometry-Preserved Style Transfer module, an encoder-transformer-decoder that adds an attention-guided local contrastive loss and a global co

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's validity rests on the unverified assumption that its twelve automated scores — no-reference image-quality models, aesthetic scorers, and a flow-based warp error — track what humans mean by good stylization, since the paper never compares its user-study votes with the metric scores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future 4D stylization work can be benchmarked on the same scenes and twelve scores, replacing ad-hoc frame-wise losses and informal polls as the field's common yardstick.
  • The two-stage recipe — lock geometry, then fit appearance with per-Gaussian MLPs — is shown to avoid the temporal flicker and blur of training 4DGS directly on stylized frames, and the same representation improves plain reconstruction PSNR over 4DGS on all six benchmark scenes.
  • Frame-by-frame 2D style transfer (AdaIN, AdaAttN) is insufficient for dynamic scenes, so those shortcuts are ruled out as viable 4D baselines.
  • The state-of-the-art claim is bounded by the paper's own limitation: one fixed style per scene and a multi-stage training cost of about two hours per scene, so fast style switching and region-specific stylization remain open.
  • The ablation of HGST shows its local contrastive loss reduces background flicker beyond the base MCCNet architecture, while the content loss preserves object boundaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own tables allow a direct test it does not run: correlating the twelve metric scores with the 34-participant preference percentages. That correlation is the difference between a benchmark that ranks methods the way people judge them and one that ranks them by proxy.
  • Because the per-Gaussian MLPs touch only color and opacity, the same pipeline plausibly extends to relighting, recoloring, or material editing of dynamic scenes with the geometry untouched — an application the paper does not claim.
  • The quantitative comparison covers three of the six Neu3D scenes; extending the protocol to the remaining scenes and to multiple style pairs per scene would test whether the margins hold across the full range of motion and background complexity.
  • The twelve-metric protocol could serve as a template for benchmarking other 4D appearance-editing tasks, such as object insertion, removal, or relighting, where temporal and multi-view consistency are likewise the hard part.
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 introduces Style4D-Bench, a proposed benchmark suite for 4D stylization, comprising an evaluation protocol with six dimensions and twelve metrics, a baseline method Style4D built on 4D Gaussian Splatting, and a collection of dynamic scenes. The baseline combines a 4DGS scene representation, per-Gaussian MLP style codes, and a Holistic Geometry-preserved Style Transfer module. Experiments are conducted on three Neu3D scenes, comparing Style4D against 4DGS with AdaIN/AdaAttN and 4DStyleGaussian, plus a 34-participant user study. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance and that the benchmark standardizes evaluation for 4D stylization.

Significance. If the benchmark's metrics were validated and the dataset were clearly defined, this would be a useful contribution: it addresses an under-explored task, proposes a concrete evaluation protocol, and provides a reproducible baseline with released code and project page. However, the central validity of the 12-metric protocol is not established. The user study is not compared against any of the twelve metrics, no correlation or significance analysis is reported, and several text claims are contradicted by the paper's own Table 1. The SOTA claim and the benchmark's usefulness both rest on these unvalidated metrics, so the manuscript needs substantial revision before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1–3.2 and Sec. 3.3] The benchmark's central claim is that the twelve metrics reliably evaluate 4D stylization quality and consistency. No validation is provided that these metrics track human perception. The 34-participant user study (Tables 2–3) reports only preference percentages; it is never correlated with any of the twelve metrics, no rank agreement is computed, and no significance tests or confidence intervals are given. The paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 3 that style is subjective and ground truth is absent. This is load-bearing: if the metrics do not align with human judgment, the benchmark rankings and the SOTA claim collapse. Please add a validation experiment (e.g., per-scene/per-method Spearman correlation between metric scores and user-study preferences, or pairwise agreement) and report error bars over random seeds/viewpoints/frames.
  2. [Table 1 vs. Sec. 5.1] The text claims Style4D achieves 'the lowest DISTS and Warp Loss values' and 'the best DINO scores'. Table 1 contradicts this: on cookspinach, 4DStyleGaussian has lower Warp Loss (0.0053 vs. 0.0058); on searsteak, 4DStyleGaussian again has lower Warp Loss (0.0050 vs. 0.0066); on cookspinach, 4DStyleGaussian has higher DINO (0.9403 vs. 0.9395). Since no aggregation rule is given for 'most metrics', the selective reporting makes the SOTA claim non-verifiable. Either specify a pre-registered aggregation/ranking procedure or correct the overclaims.
  3. [Sec. 5 'Datasets' vs. Abstract/Contributions] The abstract and contributions claim the benchmark includes 'a curated collection of high-resolution dynamic 4D scenes'. The experiments, however, use the existing Neu3D dataset, and no curation protocol, dataset statistics, or release details for a new dataset are provided. This makes the benchmark's dataset contribution unclear: is the benchmark a protocol applied to Neu3D, a selected subset of Neu3D scenes, or a new dataset? If the latter, the paper must describe and release it; if the former, the abstract and contributions should be rephrased. The evaluation also covers only three of the six Neu3D scenes, with no rationale for excluding the others.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (5)–(6) vs. Sec. 3.2] Several benchmark metrics overlap with Style4D's training objectives: content consistency (LPIPS/SSIM) overlaps with L_id and L_content, style consistency (CKDN/LPIPS) overlaps with L_style, and spatiotemporal consistency (DISTS/warp loss) overlaps with L_consistency. Since Style4D is both the benchmark proposer and the baseline, the evaluation is not independent of the method's design. This does not by itself invalidate the benchmark, but it should be acknowledged and mitigated—for example, by reporting metrics that are not used in training, or by an external evaluation protocol. Without this, the SOTA claim is vulnerable to circularity concerns.
  5. [Table 1 and Sec. 5.1] All quantitative comparisons report single numbers with no error bars, significance tests, or variance across random seeds, test viewpoints, or frames. The claim of 'consistently top performance' is therefore not statistically supported. At minimum, report means and standard deviations over multiple runs or over frames, and a significance test for the main comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.1 and Appendix B.1] The main text refers to 'Table 5' for the quantitative results, but the main quantitative table is labeled Table 1; Appendix B.1 also labels a table as Table 5. Renumber tables consistently and fix all cross-references.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The taxonomy is confusing: '4D stylization consistency' is said to distinguish 'Temporal Quality and Stylization Quality', but 'Stylization Quality' appears to contain style and content consistency, not temporal aspects. Clarify the relationship among the three levels of the decomposition.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The contrastive loss notation is undefined: what are the indices m and n, and what is the size of the sample set N? The variables Gx,y and G(x,y) are also used without a clear formal definition. Please spell out the sampling procedure and the exact dimensions.
  4. [Throughout] Scene names are inconsistent (e.g., 'cook spinach' vs. 'cookspinach', 'sear steak' vs. 'searsteak'). Use a single naming convention in tables and text. There are also grammatical typos such as 'the the geometry' in Sec. 4 and 'that make an initial attempt' in the abstract.
  5. [Appendix C, Table 7] The PSNR comparison in Table 7 shows Style4D's representation improving over 4DGS on all six Neu3D scenes, but this result is not connected to the stylization benchmark in the main text. Clarify whether this is an evaluation of the style Gaussian representation on un-stylized reconstruction and how it relates to the benchmark claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark metrics are external, the baseline is evaluated on novel viewpoints, and no self-citation chain is load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain from benchmark design to the SOTA claim contains no circular reduction. The benchmark metrics (Sec. 3.1–3.2: UIQM, Clipiqa+, Musiq, Qalign, Dists, warp loss, DINO, CKDN, LPIPS, SSIM) are pre-existing, externally defined measures applied to rendered videos; none is defined in terms of Style4D's outputs or fitted values. Style4D's training objectives (Eqs. 2–6) include content, style, and temporal-consistency losses that are conceptually aligned with some benchmark dimensions (e.g., Lcontent versus LPIPS content consistency, Lstyle versus style similarity, Lconsistency versus warp loss). That alignment is a design choice, not a constructor: the benchmark evaluates novel viewpoints and arbitrary times from a Gaussian representation trained on fixed stylized frames (Eq. 6), so the evaluation is a genuine generalization test. No benchmark score is a re-statement of a training loss, no parameter is fitted to benchmark scores, and the user study is not used to fit or rename any metric. There are also no load-bearing self-citations; the cited prior works (4DGS, SuperGaussians, MCCNet, CCPL) are external. The paper's weaknesses—the 34-participant user study is never correlated with the 12 metrics, and the text overclaims 'lowest DISTS and Warp Loss' despite Table 1 showing 4DStyleGaussian lower on some scenes—are validation/correctness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central experimental claims rely on hand-set hyperparameters and unvalidated perceptual metrics. No new physical entity is introduced; the Style Gaussian Representation is a software component.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weights λ_consistency, λ_style, λ_id, λ_illum, λ_ins = 3, 18, 7, 1e-5, 1
    Set by hand in the HGST training objective (Eq. 7); the central method depends on these choices, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Contrastive temperature τ = 0.07
    Fixed in the local contrastive loss (Eq. 2); standard value but not justified for this setting.
  • Per-Gaussian MLP hidden units = 4
    Section A: each tiny MLP has four hidden units; chosen without ablation in the main text.
  • Style scene subset = 3 of 6 Neu3D scenes
    Main stylization comparisons use cookspinach, flamesalmon1, and searsteak; the selection is not justified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Neu3D scenes are representative of 4D stylization needs.
    The benchmark evaluates on Neu3D dynamic scenes; generalizing beyond this dataset is assumed.
  • domain assumption No-reference metrics (UIQM, Clipiqa+, Musiq, Qalign, etc.) measure stylization quality faithfully.
    Used as the imaging and aesthetic quality axes without validation against human ratings in this paper.
  • domain assumption Warp loss computed with RAFT optical flow is a valid measure of temporal consistency on stylized frames.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B.1; RAFT flow may be unreliable on heavily stylized content.
  • ad hoc to paper The decomposition of 4D stylization into six dimensions (imaging, aesthetic, spatiotemporal, subject, style, content) is the right task definition.
    Section 3; this is the authors' construction of quality, not derived from an external standard.
invented entities (1)
  • Style Gaussian Representation (per-Gaussian MLP style codes)
    purpose: Modulates Gaussian color and opacity over time and viewpoint for stylized 4D rendering.
    A learned internal representation; no independent falsifiable handle outside the pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Style4D-Bench: A Benchmark Suite for 4D Stylization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3AJ6QSM

@misc{pith2026250819243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Style4D-Bench: A Benchmark Suite for 4D Stylization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3AJ6QSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19243}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Style4D-Bench, the first benchmark suite specifically designed for 4D stylization, with the goal of standardizing evaluation and facilitating progress in this emerging area. Style4D-Bench comprises: 1) a comprehensive evaluation protocol measuring spatial fidelity, temporal coherence, and multi-view consistency through both perceptual and quantitative metrics, 2) a strong baseline that make an initial attempt for 4D stylization, and 3) a curated collection of high-resolution dynamic 4D scenes with diverse motions and complex backgrounds. To establish a strong baseline, we present Style4D, a novel framework built upon 4D Gaussian Splatting. It consists of three key components: a basic 4DGS scene representation to capture reliable geometry, a Style Gaussian Representation that leverages lightweight per-Gaussian MLPs for temporally and spatially aware appearance control, and a Holistic Geometry-Preserved Style Transfer module designed to enhance spatio-temporal consistency via contrastive coherence learning and structural content preservation. Extensive experiments on Style4D-Bench demonstrate that Style4D achieves state-of-the-art performance in 4D stylization, producing fine-grained stylistic details with stable temporal dynamics and consistent multi-view rendering. We expect Style4D-Bench to become a valuable resource for benchmarking and advancing research in stylized rendering of dynamic 3D scenes. Project page: https://becky-catherine.github.io/Style4D . Code: https://github.com/Becky-catherine/Style4D-Bench .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Style4D. Style4D consists of three key components, a basic 4DGS representation, a Style Gaussian Representation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 4D Stylization Comparison: (a) Original scene image, (b) 4DGS with AdaIN, (c) 4DGS with AdaAttN, (d) 4DStyleGaussian, (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of HGST stylization method (Ours) compared with other 2D style transfer approaches: (a) Content image; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of stylization results by different methods: (a) Original images (before style transfer), (b) 4DGS with AdaIN, (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of HGST stylization method (Ours) compared with other 2D style transfer approaches: (a) Content image; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study: (a) Original scene images, (b) Stylized images, (c) 4DGS trained with stylized images, (d) 4DGS trained under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation study with moving views: (a) 4DGS trained with stylized images, (b) 4DGS trained under our two-stage scheme without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study of HGST. C. Ablation Studies We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to evaluate the contribution of each key component in our Style4D frame￾work, validating the necessity and effectiveness of our de￾sign. Compared with Direct 4DGS Training on Stylized…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reconstruction Results under Moving Viewpoints on flame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reconstruction Results under Moving Viewpoints on sear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation Study of the Holistic Geometry-preserved Style Transfer Module: (a) MCCNet (b) MCCNet with CCPL Loss (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Learning Physics from Pretrained Video Models: A Multimodal Continuous and Sequential World Interaction Models for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    PhysGen uses video models to learn physics for robots, outperforming baselines by up to 13.8% on Libero and matching specialized models in real-world tasks.

  2. OOWM: Structuring Embodied Reasoning and Planning via Object-Oriented Programmatic World Modeling

    cs.AI 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    OOWM models the world as an explicit symbolic tuple with UML diagrams and trains via SFT plus GRPO to outperform text-based CoT on embodied planning benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 5855–5864,

  2. [2]

    Hexplane: A fast representa- tion for dynamic scenes

    Ang Cao and Justin Johnson. Hexplane: A fast representa- tion for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 130–141, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [3]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 3

    2021

  4. [4]

    Efficient geometry-aware 3d generative adversarial networks

    Eric R Chan, Connor Z Lin, Matthew A Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas J Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, et al. Efficient geometry-aware 3d generative adversarial networks. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16123–16133, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. InEuropean con- ference on computer vision, pages 333–350. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  6. [6]

    Coherent online video style transfer

    Dongdong Chen, Jing Liao, Lu Yuan, Nenghai Yu, and Gang Hua. Coherent online video style transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1105–1114, 2017. 4

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Gaussianeditor: Swift and control- lable 3d editing with gaussian splatting

    Yiwen Chen, Zilong Chen, Chi Zhang, Feng Wang, Xi- aofeng Yang, Yikai Wang, Zhongang Cai, Lei Yang, Huaping Liu, and Guosheng Lin. Gaussianeditor: Swift and control- lable 3d editing with gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 21476–21485, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [8]

    Upst-nerf: Uni- versal photorealistic style transfer of neural radiance fields for 3d scene

    Yaosen Chen, Qi Yuan, Zhiqiang Li, Yuegen Liu, Wei Wang, Chaoping Xie, Xuming Wen, and Qien Yu. Upst-nerf: Uni- versal photorealistic style transfer of neural radiance fields for 3d scene. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Stylizing 3d scene via im- plicit representation and hypernetwork

    Pei-Ze Chiang, Meng-Shiun Tsai, Hung-Yu Tseng, Wei- Sheng Lai, and Wei-Chen Chiu. Stylizing 3d scene via im- plicit representation and hypernetwork. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vi- sion, pages 1475–1484, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    Arbitrary video style transfer via multi-channel correlation

    Yingying Deng, Fan Tang, Weiming Dong, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, and Changsheng Xu. Arbitrary video style transfer via multi-channel correlation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 1210–1217,

  3. [11]

    Simoncelli

    Keyan Ding, Kede Ma, Shiqi Wang, and Eero P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity. CoRR, abs/2004.07728, 2020. 3

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    4d-rotor gaussian splatting: towards efficient novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes

    Yuanxing Duan, Fangyin Wei, Qiyu Dai, Yuhang He, Wen- zheng Chen, and Baoquan Chen. 4d-rotor gaussian splatting: towards efficient novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , pages 1–11,

    2024

  5. [13]

    Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural vox- els

    Jiemin Fang, Taoran Yi, Xinggang Wang, Lingxi Xie, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Qi Tian. Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural vox- els. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers, pages 1–9,

    2022

  6. [14]

    8 Ccedit: Creative and controllable video editing via diffu- sion models

    Ruoyu Feng, Wenming Weng, Yanhui Wang, Yuhui Yuan, Jianmin Bao, Chong Luo, Zhibo Chen, and Baining Guo. 8 Ccedit: Creative and controllable video editing via diffu- sion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6712– ...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5501–5510, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Giacomo Meanti, Frederik Rahbæk Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 12479–12488, 2023. 2

    2023

  9. [17]

    Im- age style transfer using convolutional neural networks

    Leon A Gatys, Alexander S Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. Im- age style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2414–2423, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  10. [18]

    Ar- bitrary style transfer with deep feature reshuffle

    Shuyang Gu, Congliang Chen, Jing Liao, and Lu Yuan. Ar- bitrary style transfer with deep feature reshuffle. InProceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8222–8231, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  11. [19]

    Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19740–19750, 2023. 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    Koniq-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment

    Vlad Hosu, Hanhe Lin, Tamas Sziranyi, and Dietmar Saupe. Koniq-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29:4041–4056, 2020. 3

    2020

  13. [21]

    Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE international conference on computer vi- sion, pages 1501–1510, 2017. 1, 2, 14

    2017

  14. [22]

    Stylizednerf: consistent 3d scene stylization as styl- ized nerf via 2d-3d mutual learning

    Yi-Hua Huang, Yue He, Yu-Jie Yuan, Yu-Kun Lai, and Lin Gao. Stylizednerf: consistent 3d scene stylization as styl- ized nerf via 2d-3d mutual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18342–18352, 2022. 2

    2022

  15. [23]

    Rave: Randomized noise shuf- fling for fast and consistent video editing with diffusion mod- els

    Ozgur Kara, Bariscan Kurtkaya, Hidir Yesiltepe, James M Rehg, and Pinar Yanardag. Rave: Randomized noise shuf- fling for fast and consistent video editing with diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6507–6516,

  16. [24]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5148–5157, 2021. 3

    2021

  17. [25]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

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

  18. [26]

    Style transfer by relaxed optimal transport and self-similarity

    Nicholas Kolkin, Jason Salavon, and Gregory Shakhnarovich. Style transfer by relaxed optimal transport and self-similarity. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10051–10060, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    Exploring the temporal consistency of arbitrary style transfer: A channelwise perspective

    Xiaoyu Kong, Yingying Deng, Fan Tang, Weiming Dong, Chongyang Ma, Yongyong Chen, Zhenyu He, and Chang- sheng Xu. Exploring the temporal consistency of arbitrary style transfer: A channelwise perspective. IEEE Trans- actions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 35(6): 8482...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Learning blind video temporal consistency

    Wei-Sheng Lai, Jia-Bin Huang, Oliver Wang, Eli Shechtman, Ersin Yumer, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Learning blind video temporal consistency. In Proceedings of the European con- ference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 170–185, 2018. 1

    2018

  21. [29]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollhoefer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, et al. Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- si...

    2022

  22. [30]

    4dstylegaussian: Zero-shot 4d style transfer with gaussian splatting

    Wanlin Liang, Hongbin Xu, Weitao Chen, Feng Xiao, and Wenxiong Kang. 4dstylegaussian: Zero-shot 4d style transfer with gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10412, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Visual attribute transfer through deep image analogy

    Jing Liao, Yuan Yao, Lu Yuan, Gang Hua, and Sing Bing Kang. Visual attribute transfer through deep image analogy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.01088, 2017. 1

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceeding...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Stylerf: Zero-shot 3d style transfer of neural radiance fields

    Kunhao Liu, Fangneng Zhan, Yiwen Chen, Jiahui Zhang, Yingchen Yu, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik, Shijian Lu, and Eric P Xing. Stylerf: Zero-shot 3d style transfer of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Stylegaussian: Instant 3d style transfer with gaussian splatting

    Kunhao Liu, Fangneng Zhan, Muyu Xu, Christian Theobalt, Ling Shao, and Shijian Lu. Stylegaussian: Instant 3d style transfer with gaussian splatting. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Technical Communications, pages 1–4. 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  27. [35]

    Structure-guided arbitrary style transfer for artistic image and video

    Shiguang Liu and Ting Zhu. Structure-guided arbitrary style transfer for artistic image and video. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24:1299–1312, 2021. 4

    2021

  28. [36]

    Adaattn: Revisit attention mechanism in arbitrary neural style transfer

    Songhua Liu, Tianwei Lin, Dongliang He, Fu Li, Meiling Wang, Xin Li, Zhengxing Sun, Qian Li, and Errui Ding. Adaattn: Revisit attention mechanism in arbitrary neural style transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6649–6658, 20...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Robust dynamic radiance fields

    Yu-Lun Liu, Chen Gao, Andreas Meuleman, Hung-Yu Tseng, Ayush Saraf, Changil Kim, Yung-Yu Chuang, Jo- hannes Kopf, and Jia-Bin Huang. Robust dynamic radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13–23, 2023. 2

    2023

  30. [38]

    Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by per- 9 sistent dynamic view synthesis

    Jonathon Luiten, Georgios Kopanas, Bastian Leibe, and Deva Ramanan. Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by per- 9 sistent dynamic view synthesis. In 2024 International Con- ference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 800–809. IEEE, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  32. [40]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  33. [41]

    Snerf: stylized neural implicit representations for 3d scenes

    Thu Nguyen-Phuoc, Feng Liu, and Lei Xiao. Snerf: stylized neural implicit representations for 3d scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02363, 2022. 1, 2

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Steven M Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualla. Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5865–5874, 2021. 2

    2021

  35. [43]

    Hypernerf: A higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Peter Hedman, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Steven M Seitz. Hypernerf: A higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13228, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes

    Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10318–10327, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  37. [45]

    Gaussian splatting in style

    Abhishek Saroha, Mariia Gladkova, Cecilia Curreli, Do- minik Muhle, Tarun Yenamandra, and Daniel Cremers. Gaussian splatting in style. In DAGM German Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 234–251. Springer, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tensor4d: Efficient neural 4d decomposition for high-fidelity dynamic reconstruction and rendering

    Ruizhi Shao, Zerong Zheng, Hanzhang Tu, Boning Liu, Hongwen Zhang, and Yebin Liu. Tensor4d: Efficient neural 4d decomposition for high-fidelity dynamic reconstruction and rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 166...

    2023

  39. [47]

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

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. 12

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction

    Cheng Sun, Min Sun, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5459– 5469, 2022. 2

    2022

  41. [49]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  42. [50]

    Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven ma- nipulation of neural radiance fields

    Can Wang, Menglei Chai, Mingming He, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven ma- nipulation of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3835–3844, 2022. 2

    2022

  43. [51]

    Nerf-art: Text-driven neural radiance fields stylization

    Can Wang, Ruixiang Jiang, Menglei Chai, Mingming He, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. Nerf-art: Text-driven neural radiance fields stylization. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  44. [52]

    Ex- ploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images

    Jianyi Wang, Kelvin CK Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Ex- ploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images. In AAAI, 2023. 3

    2023

  45. [53]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module

    Sanghyun Woo, Jongchan Park, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. Cbam: Convolutional block attention module. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2018 , pages 3–19, Cham, 2018. Springer International Publishing. 4

    2018

  46. [54]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 20310–2032...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Q-align: Teaching lmms for visual scoring via discrete text-defined levels

    Haoning Wu, Zicheng Zhang, Weixia Zhang, Chaofeng Chen, Chunyi Li, Liang Liao, Annan Wang, Erli Zhang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, Xiongkuo Min, Guangtai Zhai, and Weisi Lin. Q-align: Teaching lmms for visual scoring via discrete text-defined levels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17090...

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ccpl: Con- trastive coherence preserving loss for versatile style transfer

    Zijie Wu, Zhen Zhu, Junping Du, and Xiang Bai. Ccpl: Con- trastive coherence preserving loss for versatile style transfer. In European conference on computer vision, pages 189–206. Springer, 2022. 4

    2022

  49. [57]

    Supergaussians: Enhancing gaussian splat- ting using primitives with spatially varying colors, 2024

    Rui Xu, Wenyue Chen, Jiepeng Wang, Yuan Liu, Peng Wang, Lin Gao, Shiqing Xin, Taku Komura, Xin Li, and Wenping Wang. Supergaussians: Enhancing gaussian splat- ting using primitives with spatially varying colors, 2024. 4

    2024

  50. [58]

    Real-time photorealistic dynamic scene representation and rendering with 4d gaussian splatting

    Zeyu Yang, Hongye Yang, Zijie Pan, and Li Zhang. Real-time photorealistic dynamic scene representation and rendering with 4d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10642, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiao- han Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Generalizable neural voxels for fast human radiance fields

    Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Xinggang Wang, and Wenyu Liu. Generalizable neural voxels for fast human radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15387, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    From patches to pictures (paq-2-piq): Mapping the perceptual space of pic- ture quality

    Zhenqiang Ying, Haoran Niu, Praful Gupta, Dhruv Maha- jan, Deepti Ghadiyaram, and Alan Bovik. From patches to pictures (paq-2-piq): Mapping the perceptual space of pic- ture quality. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3575–3585,

  54. [62]

    Gaussian opacity fields: Efficient adaptive surface reconstruction in unbounded scenes

    Zehao Yu, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Gaussian opacity fields: Efficient adaptive surface reconstruction in unbounded scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(6):1–13, 2024. 4

    2024

  55. [63]

    Styl- 10 izedgs: Controllable stylization for 3d gaussian splatting

    Dingxi Zhang, Yu-Jie Yuan, Zhuoxun Chen, Fang-Lue Zhang, Zhenliang He, Shiguang Shan, and Lin Gao. Styl- 10 izedgs: Controllable stylization for 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05220, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Arf: Artistic radiance fields

    Kai Zhang, Nick Kolkin, Sai Bi, Fujun Luan, Zexiang Xu, Eli Shechtman, and Noah Snavely. Arf: Artistic radiance fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 717–733. Springer, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  57. [65]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 3

    2018

  58. [66]

    Learning conditional knowledge distilla- tion for degraded-reference image quality assessment.ICCV,

    Heliang Zheng, Jianlong Fu, Yanhong Zeng, Zheng-Jun Zha, and Jiebo Luo. Learning conditional knowledge distilla- tion for degraded-reference image quality assessment.ICCV,

  59. [67]

    Extract free dense labels from clip

    Chong Zhou, Chen Change Loy, and Bo Dai. Extract free dense labels from clip. In European conference on computer vision, pages 696–712. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  60. [68]

    Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields

    Jingyu Zhuang, Chen Wang, Liang Lin, Lingjie Liu, and Guanbin Li. Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers, pages 1–10, 2023. 2 11 A. Implementation and Network Details 4DGS Representation. We follow the training con...

    2023

  61. [69]

    The style perceptual loss Lstyle minimizes the style differences between the generated image Ics and the style image Is by comparing the mean and variance of features extracted from each layer of a pre-trained VGG19. For- mally, the loss is expressed as: Lstyle = X l ∥µl(Ics) ...

  62. [70]

    The identity loss Lid helps to preserve the content structure while maintaining the richness of the style pat- terns: Lid = ∥Icc − Ic∥2 + ∥Iss − Is∥2 (10) where Icc and Iss are the generated results using natural im- ages and paintings as content and style images, respectively

  63. [71]

    It is defined as: Lillum = ∥G(Ic, Is) − G(Ic + ϵ, Is)∥2 (11) where G(·) is the generation function, and ϵ ∼ N (0, σ2I) represents random Gaussian noise

    Illumination Loss Lillum: Illumination loss addresses the flickering effect caused by illumination variations in video sequences. It is defined as: Lillum = ∥G(Ic, Is) − G(Ic + ϵ, Is)∥2 (11) where G(·) is the generation function, and ϵ ∼ N (0, σ2I) represents random Gaussian noise

  64. [72]

    Inner Channel Similarity Loss Lins: This loss strengthens the consistency of generated features within each channel, ensuring that there are no disharmonious ar- eas: Lins = CX c=1 Innerc,i (12) where Innerc,i is the inner similarity defined as: Innerc,i = arg min i h×wX j=1 1...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.