Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

MonoMobility: Zero-Shot 3D Mobility Analysis from Monocular Videos

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A monocular video alone can parse the moving parts of articulated objects and recover their 3D motion axes and motion types, without annotated training data.

desk verdict Genuine pipeline contribution with a real conditional: the strong synthetic numbers assume near-perfect depth/flow, so the zero-shot claim is softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11868 v3 pith:XVR5LWGN submitted 2025-05-17 cs.CV

Hongyi Zhou , Yulan Guo , Xiaogang Wang , Kai Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords articulatedobjectszero-shotmotionanalysismonocularvideo2DGaussiansplattingaxisestimationopticalflowsegmentationdynamicsceneoptimizationtypeclassification
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 the motion parts and motion attributes of articulated objects can be extracted from a single monocular video, with no annotated training data. It combines off-the-shelf depth and optical flow estimates to initialize a 2D Gaussian splatting scene, then optimizes the scene with rendering, normal, and motion losses to refine the parts and their axes. If correct, robots with ordinary RGB cameras could analyze interactions with doors, drawers, and staplers in unfamiliar scenes without retraining. On a synthetic benchmark the method reports a mean axis-angle error around 1.26 degrees and correctly classifies rotation, translation, and combined motions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a 2D Gaussian splatting scene, a differentiable surface representation made of flat Gaussian primitives rendered by alpha-blending, in which each motion part is a rigidly transformed group of Gaussians governed by a shared motion attribute consisting of axis direction, axis position, and per-frame translation and rotation. A coarse initial parse, built from depth-derived point clouds, optical-flow segmentation, and point-cloud registration between the two frames with largest motion, provides the starting axis and part labels. An end-to-end optimization then refines all parameters against three losses: a rendering loss for visual consistency, a normal loss for geometric consistency, and a motion loss that keeps each Gaussian group's transformation consistent with the point-cloud motion between sampled frame pairs. The motion-type decision (translation, rotation, or both) and the pruning of spurious parts come from thresholding the accumulated translation and rotation after a fixed number of iterations.

What would settle it

Record or render a monocular video of an articulated object in a setting known to break monocular depth or optical flow, such as a specular, textureless rotating part or a slow-moving part whose optical-flow segmentation merges it with the static background, and check whether the pipeline still finds the moving part and its axis. Because the paper states that no Gaussians are added or removed during optimization and that only pruning occurs, any moving part missed by the initial optical-flow segmentation is unrecoverable; a clearly visible small-amplitude motion that the initializer misclassifies as static would refute the universality of the zero-shot claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 3D mobility analysis, identifying which parts move and how, can be posed as self-supervised dynamic scene optimization rather than a supervised recognition problem. Starting from monocular depth, optical flow, and camera poses supplied by pretrained estimators, the method segments candidate moving parts, initializes each as a group of 2D Gaussians with an assumed rotation-plus-translation axis, and then jointly optimizes the scene and the motion parameters so rendered frames, surface normals, and point-cloud motion all agree. The optimization both prunes false motion parts and refines axis direction and position, after which motion type is read off from the total translation and rotation magnitudes. The paper reports that this yields lower mean angular error than compared baselines, with mean error 1.262 degrees on its synthetic scenes, and plausible qualitative results on phone-captured real videos.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the off-the-shelf depth and optical flow estimators provide point clouds accurate enough that the initial axis estimate and the motion loss are both trustworthy; if those pretrained models fail on a scene, the initial parsing breaks and the optimization cannot recover the true motion parts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robots equipped with ordinary monocular RGB cameras could parse articulated-object motions in unfamiliar scenes without per-object annotations or multi-view rigs.
  • The method covers pure translation, pure rotation, and combined rotation-plus-translation, so it generalizes beyond simple hinges and sliders to motions like the helical path of a lift chair.
  • Because the optimization is per-scene and self-supervised, any video of a moving articulated object, including casual phone recordings, can serve as input, though at the cost of per-scene optimization time.
  • Ablations indicate the optimization contributes mainly to axis and type refinement: motion-type accuracy rises from 0.667 to 1.0 when axis initialization is added, while the part-segmentation IoU stays at 0.956.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the underlying depth and flow estimators improve, the same coarse-to-fine optimization could extend to non-rigid articulated motion by replacing rigid part transforms with per-part warp fields.
  • Editorial inference: the framework could act as a pseudo-label generator, producing axis and part annotations on unlabeled videos that could train a fast feed-forward predictor, moving the per-scene optimization cost offline.
  • Editorial inference: the motion-loss idea, matching Gaussian-group transformations to point-cloud transformations, is a modular constraint that could be adapted to other dynamic scene representations, such as dynamic meshes or implicit surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MonoMobility, a zero-shot framework that takes a monocular video of an articulated object and outputs motion parts together with their motion attributes (axis direction, axis position, and motion type: translation, rotation, or rotation+translation). The method first uses off-the-shelf monocular depth estimation, optical flow, and MASt3R to build per-frame point clouds and segment candidate motion parts. It initializes a 2D Gaussian splatting scene from the first-frame point cloud, estimates an initial motion axis from the largest-motion pair of point clouds, and then optimizes per scene with rendering, normal, and motion losses. Motion parts are pruned and motion types are classified after optimization. Quantitative evaluation is carried out on a self-created Blender synthetic dataset (15 scenes) with comparisons against PARIS-scene, PARIS-obj, and DGMarbles*, and qualitative results are shown on 11 real-world videos. The reported mean axis-angle error is 1.262 degrees on the synthetic benchmark, with ablations showing the importance of axis initialization and of each loss term.

Significance. If the reported results transfer to real monocular videos, the work would be a useful step toward annotation-free articulated-object analysis for embodied agents, avoiding the dense multi-view or part-level supervision required by prior methods. The paper's strengths are its fully self-supervised optimization objective, explicit integration of motion attributes with 2D Gaussian splatting, and clean ablations showing that the axis initialization, rendering loss, normal loss, and motion loss each contribute to the final accuracy. The synthetic quantitative results are encouraging. However, the quantitative evidence is limited to a small synthetic dataset, the real-world evaluation is qualitative only, no error bars or multiple runs are reported, and no code is released; these gaps prevent the unconditional zero-shot claim from being fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Table 1] The quantitative evaluation is run exclusively on synthetic Blender scenes, but the paper does not state whether the depth maps and optical flow used in Section 4.2 are rendered ground truth or outputs of the off-the-shelf estimators [12,20,21,49]. If they are ground truth, Table 1 measures only the optimization stage, not the full monocular-video pipeline; if they are estimated, the near-perfect synthetic geometry still gives no evidence about robustness to real depth/flow errors. Because the abstract claims precise parsing "only using a monocular video" and the conclusion explicitly acknowledges failure when depth/flow are poor, the paper needs a controlled study (e.g., perturbing depth/flow quality or evaluating on real videos with pseudo ground truth) that reports how AE, PE, and TA degrade.
  2. [Eq. (7) and Section 4.4] The motion loss uses point clouds P_A and P_B that are extracted from the same depth maps and segmentation used to initialize the motion-part Gaussians and the axis parameters. Consequently, the motion loss can reinforce the initialization rather than independently correct it; Table 2 shows that removing the axis initialization raises AE from 1.143 degrees to 10.235 degrees, underscoring the initial axis's influence. This is not fatal because the rendering and normal losses provide independent photometric and geometric supervision, but the paper should quantify how much of the final axis correction comes from the motion loss versus the rendering/normal losses, for example by ablating Eq. (7) under corrupted or random initialization.
  3. [Tables 1–3] All quantitative tables report point estimates from a single optimization run with no standard deviations or number of seeds. Given the stochastic frame-pair sampling in Section 4.4 and the small number of synthetic scenes (15), the headline mean AE of 1.262 degrees may not be stable; the paper should report multiple runs with variance and per-category uncertainty. In addition, the thresholds in Eq. (4) (theta_min = 10 degrees, alpha_min = 0.1*radius, phi_min = 0.05*pi, iterjudge = 2000) are hand-set, and a sensitivity analysis is needed to support the claim of annotation-free operation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3] The expression "qk = P k 1 / |P k 1|" is ambiguous; it should be written as the centroid or mean of the first-frame point cloud, not as the point cloud divided by its cardinality.
  2. [Table 1] The entry "1.68 1" in the AE row for the Fridge*3 category appears to be a formatting error (likely 1.681); please fix the typesetting.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The transformation matrix in the motion loss is written as "Mat k A→B" without a superscript in Eq. (7), while the text defines it as "Mat k A→B = Mat k B Mat k A^−1"; unify the notation and define all symbols consistently.
  4. [Section 5.3] DGMarbles* uses ground-truth segmentation to partition the exported Gaussian point clouds, while MonoMobility uses estimated segmentation; the paper should state this asymmetry explicitly, since it makes the baseline comparison favorable to DGMarbles* in terms of part identification while still showing worse axis accuracy.
  5. [Section 5.5 and Figure 3] The real-world evaluation is qualitative only; adding failure cases and a discussion of when the off-the-shelf depth/flow preprocessing fails would materially strengthen the robustness claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimization is self-supervised, the final axes improve substantially over the initialization, and independent losses are shown to matter.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from raw monocular video to the motion-part and motion-attribute output. The only supervision that touches the same data used for initialization is the motion loss, Eq. (7), which asks the Gaussian transform between two sampled states to be consistent with the point-cloud transform obtained from depth and optical flow. This is an optimization consistency constraint, not a prediction: the final axes are evaluated against ground-truth annotations, and Table 1 shows the full method (mean AE 1.262) substantially improves over its own initialization (Ours(w/o optim), mean AE 12.054). The output is therefore not forced to equal the initialization by construction. The rendering loss and normal loss use the input frames and the estimated depth-derived normals, respectively, providing additional supervision, and Table 3 shows that removing either one changes the accuracy, so these losses are load-bearing rather than relabeled inputs. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then reported as a prediction of the same quantity: the 'Ours(w/o optim)' row is explicitly reported as the initialization baseline and is worse, demonstrating that the optimization is not a renaming of the initialization. Self-citations in the paper are limited to related-work context and metric conventions, such as Shape2Motion for evaluating axis errors, and are not used to justify the central zero-shot claim. The acknowledged dependence on off-the-shelf depth and optical flow quality, stated in the conclusion, is a correctness and generalization limitation rather than a circularity, because the paper explicitly flags it and no result follows from that dependence by definition. No equation was found that reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem or privileged prior work is invoked to force the method's choices. The derivation is self-contained with respect to the stated inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method adds no new physical entities, but it rests on several external pretrained components and hand-set thresholds that are not fit to the test data; these are the main assumptions the reader must accept.

free parameters (5)
  • theta_min = 10 degrees
    Threshold for deciding whether the motion axis is initialized from the rotation component or the translation component of the point cloud registration in Sec. 4.3. Set by hand and not fitted.
  • alpha_min = 0.1 * radius
    Threshold for total translational movement to classify motion type T or RT in Eq. 4. Depends on the radius of the motion part's smallest enclosing sphere. Set by hand.
  • phi_min = 0.05 * pi
    Threshold for total rotational movement to classify motion type R or RT in Eq. 4. Set by hand.
  • iterjudge = 2000
    Iteration number at which motion type classification and pruning occur, set in Sec. 5.4.
  • loss_weights = lambda_dssim=0.2, lambda_rend=500, lambda_motion=10, lambda_normal=500
    Weights for the combined loss and total optimization iterations, listed in Sec. 5.4. Set by hand and not tuned per scene.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf depth estimation, optical flow, camera pose, and flow segmentation methods provide sufficiently accurate initialization.
    Stated in Sec. 4.2; the entire pipeline begins from these estimates, and the limitation section confirms failures here break the method.
  • domain assumption Motion parts undergo rigid transformations consisting of translation, rotation, or both about a fixed axis.
    The problem statement in Sec. 3 defines motion types and parameters; the method cannot handle non-rigid or time-varying axis motion.
  • domain assumption Point cloud registration between two frames can recover the motion axis when the movement is large.
    Sec. 4.3 uses the two point clouds with the largest motion magnitude to initialize the axis; this assumes a dominant rigid transform exists.
  • domain assumption The depth-based normal map used in the normal loss is a reliable geometric prior.
    Eq. 6 compares rendered normals to normals derived from estimated depth; depth errors will penalize correct geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MonoMobility: Zero-Shot 3D Mobility Analysis from Monocular Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVR5LWGN

@misc{pith2026250511868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MonoMobility: Zero-Shot 3D Mobility Analysis from Monocular Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVR5LWGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11868}
}
read the original abstract

Accurately analyzing the motion parts and their motion attributes in dynamic environments is crucial for advancing key areas such as embodied intelligence. Addressing the limitations of existing methods that rely on dense multi-view images or detailed part-level annotations, we propose an innovative framework that can analyze 3D mobility from monocular videos in a zero-shot manner. This framework can precisely parse motion parts and motion attributes only using a monocular video, completely eliminating the need for annotated training data. Specifically, our method first constructs the scene geometry and roughly analyzes the motion parts and their initial motion attributes combining depth estimation, optical flow analysis and point cloud registration method, then employs 2D Gaussian splatting for scene representation. Building on this, we introduce an end-to-end dynamic scene optimization algorithm specifically designed for articulated objects, refining the initial analysis results to ensure the system can handle 'rotation', 'translation', and even complex movements ('rotation+translation'), demonstrating high flexibility and versatility. To validate the robustness and wide applicability of our method, we created a comprehensive dataset comprising both simulated and real-world scenarios. Experimental results show that our framework can effectively analyze articulated object motions in an annotation-free manner, showcasing its significant potential in future embodied intelligence applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method could parse the motion parts of articulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our method: Given a monocular video of dynamic articulated objects, we analyze the motion parts and their motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results. Our method can handle real-world and virtual datas. With the predicted motion axis, the motion parts are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results for motion axis prediction. Gray areas represent the background regions, while other colors indicate various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation of our axis initialization and losses. Removing the motion axis initialization module, the judgement of motion type is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation of Motion Loss. Without Motion Loss, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Op-align: Object-level and part-level alignment for self-supervised category-level articulated object pose estimation

    Yuchen Che, Ryo Furukawa, and Asako Kanezaki. Op-align: Object-level and part-level alignment for self-supervised category-level articulated object pose estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16547, 2024. 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    CA 2T-Net: Category-agnostic 3d articulation transfer from single image

    Jasmine Collins, Anqi Liang, Jitendra Malik, Hao Zhang, and Fr ´ed´eric Devernay. CA 2T-Net: Category-agnostic 3d articulation transfer from single image. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2301, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Banana: Banach fixed-point network for pointcloud segmentation with inter-part equiv- ariance

    Congyue Deng, Jiahui Lei, William B Shen, Kostas Dani- ilidis, and Leonidas J Guibas. Banana: Banach fixed-point network for pointcloud segmentation with inter-part equiv- ariance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Learning Part Motion of Articulated Objects Using Spatially Continuous Neural Implicit Representations

    Yushi Du, Ruihai Wu, Yan Shen, and Hao Dong. Learn- ing part motion of articulated objects using spatially con- tinuous neural implicit representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12407, 2023. 1, 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Blender: The free and open source 3d creation suite, 2024

    Blender Foundation. Blender: The free and open source 3d creation suite, 2024. 7

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    CAPT: Category-level Articulation Estimation from a Single Point Cloud Using Transformer

    Lian Fu, Ryoichi Ishikawa, Yoshihiro Sato, and Takeshi Oishi. Capt: Category-level articulation estimation from a single point cloud using transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17360, 2024. 1, 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Curve-aware gaussian splatting for 3d parametric curve reconstruction, 2025

    Zhirui Gao, Renjiao Yi, Yaqiao Dai, Xuening Zhu, Wei Chen, Chenyang Zhu, and Kai Xu. Curve-aware gaussian splatting for 3d parametric curve reconstruction, 2025. 2

    2025

  8. [8]

    Self-supervised learning of hybrid part-aware 3d representation of 2d gaussians and su- perquadrics, 2025

    Zhirui Gao, Renjiao Yi, Yuhang Huang, Wei Chen, Chenyang Zhu, and Kai Xu. Self-supervised learning of hybrid part-aware 3d representation of 2d gaussians and su- perquadrics, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Gapartnet: Cross-category domain-generalizable object perception and manipulation via generalizable and actionable parts

    Haoran Geng, Helin Xu, Chengyang Zhao, Chao Xu, Li Yi, Siyuan Huang, and He Wang. Gapartnet: Cross-category domain-generalizable object perception and manipulation via generalizable and actionable parts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern ...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Artiscene: Language-driven artistic 3d scene generation through image intermediary

    Zeqi Gu, Yin Cui, Zhaoshuo Li, Fangyin Wei, Yunhao Ge, Jinwei Gu, Ming-Yu Liu, Abe Davis, and Yifan Ding. Artiscene: Language-driven artistic 3d scene generation through image intermediary. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages 2891– 2...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Articulated 3d human-object interactions from rgb videos: An empirical analysis of ap- proaches and challenges

    Sanjay Haresh, Xiaohao Sun, Hanxiao Jiang, Angel X Chang, and Manolis Savva. Articulated 3d human-object interactions from rgb videos: An empirical analysis of ap- proaches and challenges. In 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 312–321. IEEE, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  4. [12]

    Distill any depth: Distillation cre- ates a stronger monocular depth estimator

    Xiankang He, Dongyan Guo, Hongji Li, Ruibo Li, Ying Cui, and Chi Zhang. Distill any depth: Distillation cre- ates a stronger monocular depth estimator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19204, 2025. 2, 3, 4

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geomet- ric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation

    Mu Hu, Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Zhipeng Cai, Xiaoxiao Long, Hao Chen, Kaixuan Wang, Gang Yu, Chunhua Shen, and Shaojie Shen. Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geomet- ric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analys...

    2024

  6. [14]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically ac- curate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024. 3, 4, 5

    2024

  7. [15]

    3d warehouse: The largest library of free 3d models, 2024

    Trimble Inc. 3d warehouse: The largest library of free 3d models, 2024. 7

    2024

  8. [16]

    Opd: Single-view 3d openable part detection

    Hanxiao Jiang, Yongsen Mao, Manolis Savva, and Angel X Chang. Opd: Single-view 3d openable part detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 410–426. Springer, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  9. [17]

    Ditto: Building digital twins of articulated objects from interaction

    Zhenyu Jiang, Cheng-Chun Hsu, and Yuke Zhu. Ditto: Building digital twins of articulated objects from interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5616–5626, 2022. 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    Detection based part- level articulated object reconstruction from single rgbd im- age

    Yuki Kawana and Tatsuya Harada. Detection based part- level articulated object reconstruction from single rgbd im- age. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  11. [19]

    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 Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4):1–14, 2023. 7

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dense optical tracking: connecting the dots

    Guillaume Le Moing, Jean Ponce, and Cordelia Schmid. Dense optical tracking: connecting the dots. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19187–19197, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J´erˆome Revaud. Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 71–91. Springer, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024

  14. [22]

    Grass: Generative recursive autoencoders for shape structures

    Jun Li, Kai Xu, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Ersin Yumer, Hao Zhang, and Leonidas Guibas. Grass: Generative recursive autoencoders for shape structures. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 36(4):1–14, 2017. 1

    2017

  15. [23]

    Category-level articulated ob- ject pose estimation

    Xiaolong Li, He Wang, Li Yi, Leonidas J Guibas, A Lynn Abbott, and Shuran Song. Category-level articulated ob- ject pose estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3706–3715, 2020. 2

    2020

  16. [24]

    Semi-weakly supervised object kinematic motion prediction

    Gengxin Liu, Qian Sun, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Yu- lan Guo, Li Yi, Hui Huang, and Ruizhen Hu. Semi-weakly supervised object kinematic motion prediction. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21726–21735, 2023. 2

    2023

  17. [25]

    Paris: Part-level reconstruction and motion analysis for articulated objects

    Jiayi Liu, Ali Mahdavi-Amiri, and Manolis Savva. Paris: Part-level reconstruction and motion analysis for articulated objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 352–363, 2023. 1, 2, 7

    2023

  18. [26]

    Toward real-world category-level articulation pose esti- mation

    Liu Liu, Han Xue, Wenqiang Xu, Haoyuan Fu, and Cewu Lu. Toward real-world category-level articulation pose esti- mation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:1072– 1083, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  19. [27]

    Efficient one-pass multi- view subspace clustering with consensus anchors

    Suyuan Liu, Siwei Wang, Pei Zhang, Kai Xu, Xinwang Liu, Changwang Zhang, and Feng Gao. Efficient one-pass multi- view subspace clustering with consensus anchors. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 7576–7584, 2022. 2

    2022

  20. [28]

    Flowdiffuser: Advancing optical flow estimation with diffusion models

    Ao Luo, Xin Li, Fan Yang, Jiangyu Liu, Haoqiang Fan, and Shuaicheng Liu. Flowdiffuser: Advancing optical flow estimation with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19167–19176, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  21. [29]

    Real2code: Reconstruct articulated objects via code genera- tion

    Zhao Mandi, Yijia Weng, Dominik Bauer, and Shuran Song. Real2code: Reconstruct articulated objects via code genera- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08474, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A-sdf: Learning disentangled signed distance functions for articulated shape representation

    Jiteng Mu, Weichao Qiu, Adam Kortylewski, Alan Yuille, Nuno Vasconcelos, and Xiaolong Wang. A-sdf: Learning disentangled signed distance functions for articulated shape representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13001–13011,

  23. [31]

    Rosi: Recovering 3d shape interiors from few articulation images

    Akshay Gadi Patil, Yiming Qian, Shan Yang, Brian Jack- son, Eric Bennett, and Hao Zhang. Rosi: Recovering 3d shape interiors from few articulation images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06342, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Understanding 3d object articulation in in- ternet videos

    Shengyi Qian, Linyi Jin, Chris Rockwell, Siyi Chen, and David F Fouhey. Understanding 3d object articulation in in- ternet videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1599– 1609, 2022. 2

    2022

  25. [33]

    Self-supervised learn- ing of part mobility from point cloud sequence

    Yahao Shi, Xinyu Cao, and Bin Zhou. Self-supervised learn- ing of part mobility from point cloud sequence. In Com- puter Graphics Forum , pages 104–116. Wiley Online Li- brary, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    p 3- net: Part mobility parsing from point cloud sequences via learning explicit point correspondence

    Yahao Shi, Xinyu Cao, Feixiang Lu, and Bin Zhou. p 3- net: Part mobility parsing from point cloud sequences via learning explicit point correspondence. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2244– 2252, 2022. 2

    2022

  27. [35]

    Articulated motion-aware nerf for 3d dynamic appear- ance and geometry reconstruction by implicit motion states

    Yahao Shi, Ye Tao, Mingjia Yang, Yun Liu, Li Yi, and Bin Zhou. Articulated motion-aware nerf for 3d dynamic appear- ance and geometry reconstruction by implicit motion states. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, 2024. 2

    2024

  28. [36]

    Reacto: Reconstructing articulated ob- jects from a single video

    Chaoyue Song, Jiacheng Wei, Chuan Sheng Foo, Guosheng Lin, and Fayao Liu. Reacto: Reconstructing articulated ob- jects from a single video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5384–5395, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    Dynamic gaussian marbles for novel view synthesis of casual monocular videos

    Colton Stearns, Adam Harley, Mikaela Uy, Florian Dubost, Federico Tombari, Gordon Wetzstein, and Leonidas Guibas. Dynamic gaussian marbles for novel view synthesis of casual monocular videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18717, 2024. 2, 7

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Opdmulti: Openable part detection for multiple ob- jects

    Xiaohao Sun, Hanxiao Jiang, Manolis Savva, and Angel Chang. Opdmulti: Openable part detection for multiple ob- jects. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 169–178. IEEE, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Leia: Latent view-invariant embeddings for implicit 3d ar- ticulation

    Archana Swaminathan, Anubhav Gupta, Kamal Gupta, Shishira R Maiya, Vatsal Agarwal, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Leia: Latent view-invariant embeddings for implicit 3d ar- ticulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06703, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    SM3: Self-supervised multi-task modeling with multi- view 2d images for articulated objects

    Haowen Wang, Zhen Zhao, Zhao Jin, Zhengping Che, Liang Qiao, Yakun Huang, Zhipeng Fan, Xiuquan Qiao, and Jian Tang. SM3: Self-supervised multi-task modeling with multi- view 2d images for articulated objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09133, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Shape of motion: 4d reconstruc- tion from a single video

    Qianqian Wang, Vickie Ye, Hang Gao, Jake Austin, Zhengqi Li, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Shape of motion: 4d reconstruc- tion from a single video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13764,

  35. [43]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20697– 20709, 2024. 3

    2024

  36. [44]

    Shape2motion: Joint analysis of motion parts and attributes from 3d shapes

    Xiaogang Wang, Bin Zhou, Yahao Shi, Xiaowu Chen, Qin- ping Zhao, and Kai Xu. Shape2motion: Joint analysis of motion parts and attributes from 3d shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 8876–8884, 2019. 1, 2, 7

    2019

  37. [45]

    Neural implicit representation for building digital twins of unknown articulated objects

    Yijia Weng, Bowen Wen, Jonathan Tremblay, Valts Blukis, Dieter Fox, Leonidas Guibas, and Stan Birchfield. Neural implicit representation for building digital twins of unknown articulated objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2024

  38. [46]

    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 Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20310–20320, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [47]

    Moving object segmentation: All you need is sam (and flow)

    Junyu Xie, Charig Yang, Weidi Xie, and Andrew Zisserman. Moving object segmentation: All you need is sam (and flow). arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12389, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rpm-net: recurrent prediction of motion and parts from point cloud

    Zihao Yan, Ruizhen Hu, Xingguang Yan, Luanmin Chen, Oliver Van Kaick, Hao Zhang, and Hui Huang. Rpm-net: recurrent prediction of motion and parts from point cloud. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 38(6):1–15, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  41. [49]

    Depth any- thing v2

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Zhen Zhao, Xiao- gang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth any- thing v2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09414, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Visual identification of articulated object parts

    Vicky Zeng, Tabitha Edith Lee, Jacky Liang, and Oliver Kroemer. Visual identification of articulated object parts. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2443–2450. IEEE, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.