Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CAGE-GS: High-fidelity Cage Based 3D Gaussian Splatting Deformation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a learned cage plus a Jacobian-based covariance update can deform a 3D Gaussian Splatting scene to a target shape while preserving texture detail.

desk verdict Solid engineering contribution combining learned cages with Jacobian covariance updates; the texture-fidelity claim needs a stronger stress test on the kNN Jacobian sharing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12800 v1 pith:YFG752TN submitted 2025-04-17 cs.GR cs.CV

Yifei Tong , Runze Tian , Xiao Han , Dingyao Liu , Fenggen Yu , Yan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingcage-baseddeformationtransferJacobianmatrixcovarianceupdatemeanvaluecoordinatestexturepreservationediting
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

Deforming a 3D Gaussian Splatting scene to match a user-specified target usually degrades texture, because moving Gaussian centers without adjusting their covariance blurs or stretches the rendering. This paper proposes learning a deformation cage from the target shape and then updating each Gaussian's covariance with the Jacobian of the deformation field. The central claim is that this combination matches the geometric alignment of earlier cage-based deformers while preserving texture better, as measured by directional perceptual similarity and a 63.3 percent user-study preference. The method accepts target shapes given as text, image, point cloud, mesh, or another 3DGS model, and a sampling scheme brings deformation time to about eight minutes for a 200k-Gaussian model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the deformation cage together with the Jacobian of the cage-induced map: a coarse control mesh predicted from source and target point clouds, with mean value coordinates converting cage-vertex motion into smooth displacements of every Gaussian center. The Jacobian $J = \partial \mu'_{\mathrm{sample}} / \partial \mu_{\mathrm{sample}}$ is computed at sampled centers and applied through $\Sigma' = J R S S^T R^T J^T$ to rotate and scale each Gaussian's covariance so the splat follows the local deformation; nearest-neighbor assignment spreads each Jacobian to unsampled Gaussians. This keeps the anisotropic shape of splats coherent, which is what preserves texture detail after deformation.

What would settle it

Deform a source scene toward a target with a sharp bend, set the interpolation to lambda=1.0, and compare high-curvature regions against a version that computes a separate Jacobian for every Gaussian; if the nearest-neighbor version shows visible blurring or stretching, the near-constant local deformation assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cage-based deformation transfer can be made compatible with 3D Gaussian Splatting without sacrificing texture fidelity. Gaussian centers are bound to a learned cage through mean value coordinates and displaced by $p' = \sum_i \omega_i(p) v_{s\to t}^i$; each covariance is then transformed as $\Sigma' = J R S S^T R^T J^T$, where $J = \partial \mu'_{\mathrm{sample}} / \partial \mu_{\mathrm{sample}}$ is the Jacobian of the deformed positions. The paper further claims that computing Jacobians on 10,000 sampled Gaussians and assigning each to nearby unsampled Gaussians by nearest neighbors preserves rendering quality while cutting runtime from roughly 170 minutes to about 7–8 minutes. Quantitatively, it reports a Chamfer distance tied with the cage-based baselines (0.0997 vs. 0.0998), a higher directional perceptual similarity (0.402 vs. 0.385 and 0.374), and 63.3 percent user preference.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the deformation field is locally nearly linear, so a single Jacobian computed at a sampled Gaussian center accurately describes the motion of all nearby unsampled Gaussians.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A source 3DGS scene can be reshaped to match a target supplied as text, image, point cloud, mesh, or another 3DGS model, without manual cage editing.
  • Deformation magnitude can be controlled continuously by interpolating between the source and deformed cages, yielding smooth partial deformations at any intermediate value.
  • Updating covariances with the deformation Jacobian preserves texture better than moving Gaussian centers alone, which otherwise blurs or elongates splats.
  • Sampling 10,000 Gaussians for Jacobian computation cuts runtime from roughly 170 minutes to about 7–8 minutes on typical models while rendering quality is reported to be barely affected.
  • The method does not guarantee that straight lines, planes, or parallel structures remain unchanged, especially in artificial shapes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the nearest-neighbor Jacobian assignment implies a testable failure mode: large-magnitude or sharply bending deformations, such as interpolation at lambda=1.0 near cage edges, should show more blur or stretching in high-curvature regions than in the paper's chair or car examples.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, the gap between geometric metrics (Chamfer distance) and perceptual metrics (directional similarity, user preference) suggests texture fidelity and geometric alignment can be evaluated separately; reporting both would let future methods make that trade-off explicit.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, the covariance update depends only on the deformation Jacobian, so the same recipe could transfer to other rasterized representations with covariances, such as 2D Gaussian splatting or surfel-based renderers.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, an end-to-end version that learns Jacobian fields directly, which the paper lists as future work, could remove the nearest-neighbor approximation and extend the method to articulated or extreme deformations.
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. CAGE-GS proposes a cage-based deformation pipeline for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) models. The method first predicts a deformed cage from source and target point clouds using a per-model optimized neural network (Sec. 3.2), then updates Gaussian centers via mean value coordinates (Eq. 2), and finally updates the covariances as Sigma' = J R S S^T R^T J^T using the Jacobian of the deformation, computed for 10,000 sampled Gaussians and shared with the rest via kNN (Eqs. 6-7, Sec. 3.3). Experiments on ShapeNet and real-captured objects compare with CC, NeuralCage, and GSDeformer, reporting similar Chamfer distance yet higher DINO similarity and user preference (Table 1). Ablations isolate the contributions of the cage deformation, the Jacobian update, and the sampling strategy.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: structure-aware deformation of 3DGS while preserving texture. The Jacobian-based covariance update is a natural extension of cage deformation to Gaussian parameters, and is mathematically sound under the first-order approximation. Supporting multiple target representations (text, image, point cloud, mesh, 3DGS) is practically useful. The per-model optimization avoids large training data requirements. However, the evaluation currently overstates generality and efficiency: the geometric alignment metric is partly circular because the cage is fitted to the target, the kNN Jacobian sharing is not quantitatively validated, and no runtime comparison with baselines is provided. These issues are addressable with additional experiments and clarifications.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Table 1] The cage prediction module is optimized per model against the target point cloud (Sec. 3.2: 'we remove the pre-training process in NeuralCage and perform the optimization process per model'). Consequently, the Chamfer distances in Table 1 measure fit quality against the target, not deformation transfer or generalization. The comparison with NeuralCage and GSDeformer is therefore difficult to interpret unless those baselines are also optimized per model against the same target. Please state explicitly how each baseline was run (pre-trained weights vs. per-model optimization) and, if they are not per-model optimized, add an ablated baseline with the same treatment. In addition, to support the claimed deformation-transfer capability, please provide a held-out experiment where the network is tested on a source/target pair not used during the per-model optimization, or clarify that the method is a per-instance fitting approach rather than a learned transfer.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 10, Table 2] The claim that the kNN-based Jacobian sharing 'barely affect[s] rendering quality' is supported only by a single visual example (Fig. 10) and by runtime data (Table 2); no quantitative fidelity metric is reported for the sampled versus full-Jacobian variants. Since the entire texture-preservation advantage relies on the assumption that the deformation Jacobian is nearly constant over each kNN neighborhood, please provide a quantitative ablation (e.g., DINO similarity or rendered-view PSNR/LPIPS) across several objects and deformation magnitudes, including a large-magnitude case (lambda near 1.0) and a case with strong local curvature or non-uniform scaling. If the assumption breaks down in such regimes, state the resulting limitation explicitly.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 4.1] The abstract claims the method 'significantly outperforms existing techniques in both efficiency and deformation quality,' yet no runtime comparison with any baseline is reported. The only efficiency evidence is the internal sampling ablation in Table 2, which compares the method with itself (with and without sampling). Please report the end-to-end runtime of GSDeformer and NeuralCage on the same data and hardware, or temper the efficiency claim to avoid overstatement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos and grammatical errors, including 'our method outperforming existing techniques' (end of Sec. 1), 'plains' for 'planes' (Sec. 5), and inconsistent spelling of 'Jacobi' vs. 'Jacobian'. A careful proofread is recommended.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The value of k in the k-nearest neighbors assignment is never specified. Please report the value used and analyze its sensitivity, since it directly controls the locality approximation.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] In the covariance decomposition, Eq. (7) is correct, but the preceding text and equations typeset Sigma as 'RSS TRT' with missing superscripts; please correct the notation for clarity.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] For text and image targets, the paper states that a learning-based method generates a rough 3D proxy, but only AtlasNet is named (for images). Please specify the method used for text inputs and provide implementation details for reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The user study report ('60 participants') lacks details on the number of questions, the statistical test used, and confidence intervals. Please add these to support the preference claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Geometric alignment is optimized directly against the target, so the CD result in Tab. 1 is a fit-quality metric; the Jacobian covariance update itself is standard and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 (Learning Cages for Deformation) and Sec. 4.3 (Quantitative Results), Tab. 1]
    "To make the deformed cage well-aligned with the target model and generalized to novel shapes, we remove the pre-training process in NeuralCage and perform the optimization process per model. The cage prediction module is optimized with the source and target point clouds during testing, and the loss is the same as NeuralCage to encourage positive mean value coordinates, alignment to target and surface normal preservation."

    The same target point cloud used for the per-model 'alignment to target' loss in Sec. 3.2 is then used as the reference for the Chamfer Distance reported in Tab. 1 (Ours: 0.0997). Thus the geometric alignment score measures how well the per-model optimization converged, not an independent prediction of deformation quality. The paper itself concedes: 'Our method has similar CD value with NeuralCage [44] and GSDeformer [15] because we all use CBD to update 3DGS centers.' Insofar as the claimed geometry advantage rests on CD, it is partly a fit-quality report. The method's independent evidence is DINO and the user study, which are not objective functions of the cage optimization.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is: a cage is predicted via a network optimized per model; Gaussian centers are updated by Eq. (2); covariance matrices are updated by Eq. (7), Sigma' = J R S S^T R^T J^T, using the Jacobian from Eq. (6); unsampled Gaussians inherit Jacobians via kNN. The only genuine circular step is the geometric evaluation: because the cage network is optimized per model with an 'alignment to target' loss, the CD reported in Tab. 1 is the training objective evaluated on the same target, not a predicted quantity. The paper's own statement that CD is similar to cage baselines confirms that CD is not the differentiator. The DINO metric and user study are independent since neither appears in the cage-optimization loss. The Jacobian covariance update is the standard linear transformation of a Gaussian covariance under a local affine map, cited to Spivak [33], so it is a known mathematical result rather than a circular derivation; the kNN sharing of Jacobians is a heuristic locality assumption, which is a correctness risk, not circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation: prior references to MVC [20], NeuralCage [44], and 3DGS [21] are external works with no author overlap with CAGE-GS. The stated limitation about straight lines and parallel structures is a genuine caveat but not a circularity confession. Overall, the central novelty (Jacobian-based covariance preservation) remains independent, but the geometric 'deformation quality' claim is partially circular because its CD metric is a fitted quantity. Score 4 reflects this partial circularity.

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

The central contribution counts a moderate number of hand-chosen knobs. The template cage C0, the kNN size, the Jacobian sample count, and the inherited NeuralCage loss weights are all selected without sensitivity analysis, which means part of the measured quality could be tuning-dependent. No new physical entities are postulated; the cage is an existing control structure. The axioms are standard (MVC) plus three domain assumptions that the paper itself partially flags: the locality of the Jacobian field, the adequacy of coarse proxy targets, and the validity of the DINO metric. Overall, the method is a repackaging of established modules with one new approximation step (sampled Jacobian propagation), so the ledger is moderate, not heavy.

free parameters (4)
  • Template cage C0 = not stated
    Eq. (4) defines the source cage as C0 plus a predicted offset; the geometry and vertex count of C0 are chosen by hand and are never swept or justified, yet they determine the deformation quality.
  • kNN neighborhood size k = not stated
    The covariance update for all unsampled Gaussians depends on the nearest sampled Gaussian's Jacobian, but the value of k in the k-nearest-neighbor assignment is never given in Sec. 3.3.
  • Jacobian sample count m = 10000
    The number of sampled Gaussians used for Jacobian computation is a hand-selected trade-off between time and approximation error; the ablation shows one example but no sensitivity analysis.
  • Loss weights of the cage network = not stated
    The per-model optimization uses losses 'the same as NeuralCage' (Sec. 3.2), so the relative weights on alignment, MVC positivity, and normal preservation are inherited without being specified or ablated.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Mean value coordinates give a valid, differentiable interpolation for points inside a closed triangular cage (Ju et al. [20])
    Invoked in Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1)-(2), as the binding between Gaussian centers and cage vertices.
  • domain assumption The cage-induced displacement field is smooth enough that its first-order Jacobian at sampled centers correctly transforms nearby Gaussians, even when assigned via kNN
    Sec. 3.3, Eq. (7) and the following paragraph; the entire texture-fidelity claim rests on this locality assumption.
  • domain assumption Per-model optimization of the cage network converges to a useful deformed cage for every target type, including low-quality proxies from AtlasNet and GaussianAnything
    Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.2; the paper admits proxies are coarse yet assumes they remain valid targets.
  • domain assumption DINO feature-direction cosine similarity is a valid proxy for texture and detail preservation
    Sec. 4.1 defines DINO = cos(ftgt - fsrc, fdfm - fsrc) without validation that this directional metric tracks perceptual texture fidelity.
  • domain assumption A downstream generative model (GaussianAnything for text, AtlasNet for images) produces a geometry close enough to serve as a deformation target
    Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.2 pipeline for text and image targets; failure of the proxy breaks the text and image deformation modes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CAGE-GS: High-fidelity Cage Based 3D Gaussian Splatting Deformation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFG752TN

@misc{pith2026250412800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CAGE-GS: High-fidelity Cage Based 3D Gaussian Splatting Deformation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFG752TN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12800}
}
read the original abstract

As 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) gains popularity as a 3D representation of real scenes, enabling user-friendly deformation to create novel scenes while preserving fine details from the original 3DGS has attracted significant research attention. We introduce CAGE-GS, a cage-based 3DGS deformation method that seamlessly aligns a source 3DGS scene with a user-defined target shape. Our approach learns a deformation cage from the target, which guides the geometric transformation of the source scene. While the cages effectively control structural alignment, preserving the textural appearance of 3DGS remains challenging due to the complexity of covariance parameters. To address this, we employ a Jacobian matrix-based strategy to update the covariance parameters of each Gaussian, ensuring texture fidelity post-deformation. Our method is highly flexible, accommodating various target shape representations, including texts, images, point clouds, meshes and 3DGS models. Extensive experiments and ablation studies on both public datasets and newly proposed scenes demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms existing techniques in both efficiency and deformation quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12800 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of CAGE-GS. Top: Our method deforms the source chair to match the target models, supporting multiple target representations, including meshes, point clouds, images, texts and 3DGS. Bottom: Our method is able to control the deformation magnitude through cage interpolation. Abstract As 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) gains popularity as a 3D representation of real scenes, enabling user-friendly defor￾mation to cr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview. Our cage-based deformation framework has two modules. In the Cage Prediction Module, it learns the source cage from the source model and the cage offset from the target to generate a deformed cage. In the Gaussian Deforming Module, the deformed cage and optimized mean value coordinates from the source cage are used to deform the positions of the 3D Gaussians while keeping their covariance matrix intact. Fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Deformation results on ShapeNet dataset. We val￾idate our method on the chair, car and table categories from ShapeNet [6]. The results show that our method aligns the source shape with the target shape while preserving the source texture. 4.2. Visual Results Category-specific 3DGS deformation. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Deformation results on different target representations. The results show that our method can support different target formats, including images, point clouds, meshes and 3DGS model generated with text prompt. able without feature distortion. Moreover, both texture and…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Deformation results on real-captured data. We vali￾date our method on a real-captured teapot and a mug. The results show that our method can apply deformation transfer to the real￾captured models. specified magnitude. A λ closer to 1.0 results in a shape closer to the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Deformation magnitude control with interpolation. With cage interpolation, our method is able to control the defor￾mation magnitude of the chair and the car. Qualitative comparison with baselines. We conduct qual￾itative comparisons with other deformation transfer meth…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative deformation comparison results. We compare our method with CC [12], NeuralCage [44] and GSDeformer [15] on the chair, car and table examples from ShapeNet [6]. The red boxes indicate areas where the deformation effect is poor, please zoom in to see the blur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effectiveness of cage-based deformation. Using cage￾based deformation and jacobian matrix to optimize Gaussian pa￾rameters can preserve texure details and reduce artifacts compared to anisotropic scaling. Effectiveness of Jacobi matrix. To validate the effective- [PIT…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: , our method not only maintains the geometric struc￾ture after deformation but also preserves the texture details more effectively. In contrast, adjusting only the position of Gaussians results in blurred textures and artifacts in the de￾formed model. Source Target Our…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effectiveness of Sampling. Our sampling method can maintain the rendering quality while reducing time cost. w/o sampling Ours chair(min) 169.7 7.3 car(min) 65.2 7.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SplatPainter: Interactive Authoring of 3D Gaussians from 2D Edits via Test-Time Training

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A test-time-trained feedforward model that propagates 2D edits onto 3D Gaussian attributes at interactive speeds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Neural jaco- bian fields: Learning intrinsic mappings of arbitrary meshes

    Noam Aigerman, Kunal Gupta, Vladimir G Kim, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Jun Saito, and Thibault Groueix. Neural jaco- bian fields: Learning intrinsic mappings of arbitrary meshes. SIGGRAPH, 2022. 8

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Semantic deformation transfer

    Ilya Baran, Daniel Vlasic, Eitan Grinspun, and Jovan Popovi´c. Semantic deformation transfer. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 28(3):1–6, 2009. 3

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Spatial deformation transfer

    Mirela Ben-Chen, Ofir Weber, and Craig Gotsman. Spatial deformation transfer. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIG- GRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, pages 67–74, 2009. 3

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Dynasurfgs: Dynamic surface reconstruction with planar- based gaussian splatting

    Weiwei Cai, Weicai Ye, Peng Ye, Tong He, and Tao Chen. Dynasurfgs: Dynamic surface reconstruction with planar- based gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13972,

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Bounding proxies for shape approximation

    St ´ephane Calderon and Tamy Boubekeur. Bounding proxies for shape approximation. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(4):57–1,

    work page

  6. [6]

    Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository

    Angel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, et al. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012, 2015. 5, 7, 8

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Mvdrag3d: Drag-based creative 3d editing via multi-view generation-reconstruction priors

    Honghua Chen, Yushi Lan, Yongwei Chen, Yifan Zhou, and Xingang Pan. Mvdrag3d: Drag-based creative 3d editing via multi-view generation-reconstruction priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16272, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Sdm-net: Deep generative net- work for structured deformable mesh

    Lin Gao, Jie Yang, Tong Wu, Yu-Jie Yuan, Hongbo Fu, Yu- Kun Lai, and Hao Zhang. Sdm-net: Deep generative net- work for structured deformable mesh. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(6):1–15, 2019. 3

    2019

  2. [10]

    Real-time large-scale deforma- tion of gaussian splatting

    Lin Gao, Jie Yang, Bo-Tao Zhang, Jia-Mu Sun, Yu-Jie Yuan, Hongbo Fu, and Yu-Kun Lai. Real-time large-scale deforma- tion of gaussian splatting. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(6):1–17, 2024. 2

    2024

  3. [11]

    Kim, Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry

    Thibault Groueix, Matthew Fisher, Vladimir G. Kim, Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry. AtlasNet: A Papier-Mˆach´e Ap- proach to Learning 3D Surface Generation. In Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018. 6

    2018

  4. [12]

    Unsupervised cycle- consistent deformation for shape matching

    Thibault Groueix, Matthew Fisher, Vladimir G Kim, Bryan C Russell, and Mathieu Aubry. Unsupervised cycle- consistent deformation for shape matching. In Computer Graphics Forum , pages 123–133. Wiley Online Library,

  5. [13]

    Alignet: Partial- shape agnostic alignment via unsupervised learning

    Rana Hanocka, Noa Fish, Zhenhua Wang, Raja Giryes, Shachar Fleishman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Alignet: Partial- shape agnostic alignment via unsupervised learning. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(1):1–14, 2018. 3

    2018

  6. [14]

    Learning local shape descriptors from part correspondences with multiview convolutional networks

    Haibin Huang, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Siddhartha Chaud- huri, Duygu Ceylan, Vladimir G Kim, and Ersin Yumer. Learning local shape descriptors from part correspondences with multiview convolutional networks. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(1):1–14, 2017. 3

    2017

  7. [15]

    Gsdeformer: Direct, real-time and extensible cage-based deformation for 3d gaussian splat- ting, 2024

    Jiajun Huang, Shuolin Xu, Hongchuan Yu, Jian Jun Zhang, and Hammadi Nait Charif. Gsdeformer: Direct, real-time and extensible cage-based deformation for 3d gaussian splat- ting, 2024. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  8. [16]

    Sc-gs: Sparse-controlled gaussian splatting for editable dynamic scenes

    Yi-Hua Huang, Yang-Tian Sun, Ziyi Yang, Xiaoyang Lyu, Yan-Pei Cao, and Xiaojuan Qi. Sc-gs: Sparse-controlled gaussian splatting for editable dynamic scenes. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4220–4230, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [17]

    Nerfshop: Interactive editing of neural radiance fields

    Cl ´ement Jambon, Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Stavros Diolatzis, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Dret- takis. Nerfshop: Interactive editing of neural radiance fields. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Inter- active Techniques, 6(1), 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Vr-gs: A physical dynamics-aware interactive gaussian splatting system in virtual reality

    Ying Jiang, Chang Yu, Tianyi Xie, Xuan Li, Yutao Feng, Huamin Wang, Minchen Li, Henry Lau, Feng Gao, Yin Yang, et al. Vr-gs: A physical dynamics-aware interactive gaussian splatting system in virtual reality. In ACM SIG- GRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–1, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [19]

    Harmonic coordinates for character articu- lation

    Pushkar Joshi, Mark Meyer, Tony DeRose, Brian Green, and Tom Sanocki. Harmonic coordinates for character articu- lation. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) , 26(3):71–es,

  12. [20]

    Mean value coor- dinates for closed triangular meshes

    Tao Ju, Scott Schaefer, and Joe Warren. Mean value coor- dinates for closed triangular meshes. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 24(3):561–566, 2005. 2, 3

    2005

  13. [21]

    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. 1, 3

    2023

  14. [22]

    Gaussiananything: Interactive point cloud latent dif- fusion for 3d generation

    Yushi Lan, Shangchen Zhou, Zhaoyang Lyu, Fangzhou Hong, Shuai Yang, Bo Dai, Xingang Pan, and Chen Change Loy. Gaussiananything: Interactive point cloud latent dif- fusion for 3d generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08033,

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Green coordinates

    Yaron Lipman, David Levin, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Green coordinates. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) , 27(3): 1–10, 2008. 2

    2008

  16. [24]

    Shapes- plat: A large-scale dataset of gaussian splats and their self- supervised pretraining, 2024

    Qi Ma, Yue Li, Bin Ren, Nicu Sebe, Ender Konukoglu, Theo Gevers, Luc Van Gool, and Danda Pani Paudel. Shapes- plat: A large-scale dataset of gaussian splats and their self- supervised pretraining, 2024. 5

    2024

  17. [25]

    Reconstructing and simulating dynamic 3d objects with mesh-adsorbed gaussian splatting

    Shaojie Ma, Yawei Luo, and Yi Yang. Reconstructing and simulating dynamic 3d objects with mesh-adsorbed gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01593, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gsedit: Efficient text-guided edit- ing of 3d objects via gaussian splatting

    Francesco Palandra, Andrea Sanchietti, Daniele Baieri, and Emanuele Rodol `a. Gsedit: Efficient text-guided edit- ing of 3d objects via gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05154, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cagenerf: Cage-based neural radiance field for gen- eralized 3d deformation and animation

    Yicong Peng, Yichao Yan, Shengqi Liu, Yuhao Cheng, Shanyan Guan, Bowen Pan, Guangtao Zhai, and Xiaokang Yang. Cagenerf: Cage-based neural radiance field for gen- eralized 3d deformation and animation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:31402–31415, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  22. [30]

    Nested cages

    Leonardo Sacht, Etienne V ouga, and Alec Jacobson. Nested cages. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 34(6):1–14,

  23. [31]

    Draggaussian: Enabling drag- style manipulation on 3d gaussian representation

    Sitian Shen, Jing Xu, Yuheng Yuan, Xingyi Yang, Qiuhong Shen, and Xinchao Wang. Draggaussian: Enabling drag- style manipulation on 3d gaussian representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05800, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d

    Noah Snavely, Steven M Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 25(3):835–846, 2006. 2

    2006

  25. [33]

    A modern ap- proach to classical theorems of advanced calculus, 1965

    Michael Spivak and Calculus On Manifolds. A modern ap- proach to classical theorems of advanced calculus, 1965. 2, 4

    1965

  26. [34]

    Deformation transfer for triangle meshes

    Robert W Sumner and Jovan Popovi ´c. Deformation transfer for triangle meshes. ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG), 23(3):399–405, 2004. 3

    2004

  27. [35]

    De- formsyncnet: Deformation transfer via synchronized shape deformation spaces

    M Sung, Z Jiang, P Achlioptas, NJ Mitra, and LJ Guibas. De- formsyncnet: Deformation transfer via synchronized shape deformation spaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 39(6),

  28. [36]

    Cager: cage-based reverse engineering of animated 3d shapes

    Jean-Marc Thiery, Julien Tierny, and Tamy Boubekeur. Cager: cage-based reverse engineering of animated 3d shapes. In Computer Graphics Forum , pages 2303–2316. Wiley Online Library, 2012. 2

    2012

  29. [37]

    Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions

    Junjie Wang, Jiemin Fang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Lingxi Xie, and Qi Tian. Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 20902–20911, 2024. 2

    2024

  30. [38]

    3dn: 3d deformation network

    Weiyue Wang, Duygu Ceylan, Radomir Mech, and Ulrich Neumann. 3dn: 3d deformation network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1038–1046, 2019. 3

    2019

  31. [39]

    View-consistent 3d editing with gaus- sian splatting

    Yuxuan Wang, Xuanyu Yi, Zike Wu, Na Zhao, Long Chen, and Hanwang Zhang. View-consistent 3d editing with gaus- sian splatting. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 404–420. Springer Nature Switzerland Cham, 2024. 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gaussctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting edit- ing

    Jing Wu, Jia-Wang Bian, Xinghui Li, Guangrun Wang, Ian Reid, Philip Torr, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Gaussctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting edit- ing. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 55–

  33. [41]

    Automatic cage generation by improved obbs for mesh deformation

    Chuhua Xian, Hongwei Lin, and Shuming Gao. Automatic cage generation by improved obbs for mesh deformation. The Visual Computer, 28:21–33, 2012. 2

    2012

  34. [42]

    Sketch-guided cage-based 3d gaussian splat- ting deformation

    Tianhao Xie, Noam Aigerman, Eugene Belilovsky, and Tiberiu Popa. Sketch-guided cage-based 3d gaussian splat- ting deformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12168 , 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    Deforming radiance fields with cages

    Tianhan Xu and Tatsuya Harada. Deforming radiance fields with cages. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 159–175. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  36. [44]

    Neural cages for detail-preserving 3d deformations

    Wang Yifan, Noam Aigerman, Vladimir G Kim, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. Neural cages for detail-preserving 3d deformations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 75–83, 2020. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2020

  37. [45]

    Tip-editor: An accurate 3d editor fol- lowing both text-prompts and image-prompts

    Jingyu Zhuang, Di Kang, Yan-Pei Cao, Guanbin Li, Liang Lin, and Ying Shan. Tip-editor: An accurate 3d editor fol- lowing both text-prompts and image-prompts. ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG), 43(4):1–12, 2024. 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Driv- able 3d gaussian avatars

    Wojciech Zielonka, Timur Bagautdinov, Shunsuke Saito, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, Justus Thies, and Javier Romero. Driv- able 3d gaussian avatars. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08581,

    arXiv

  39. [71]

    Springer Nature Switzerland Cham, 2024. 2

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.