Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 60 references

GenHMR: Generative Human Mesh Recovery

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GenHMR claims that monocular 3D human mesh recovery can be reformulated as an image-conditioned generative task over discrete pose tokens, reducing MPJPE by 20-30% against state-of-the-art methods on Human3.6M, 3DPW, and EMDB.

desk verdict Good generative HMR paper with unusually thorough ablations, but the headline 20-30% SOTA gain is not yet controlled because the final numbers include a test-time 2D refinement that the deterministic baselines do not receive. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14444 v1 pith:37UY3CU5 submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV cs.AIcs.GRcs.LG

Muhammad Usama Saleem , Ekkasit Pinyoanuntapong , Pu Wang , Hongfei Xue , Srijan Das , Chen Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.GRcs.LG
keywords humanmeshrecoverymonocular3DposeestimationmaskedgenerativetransformerdiscretetokensVQ-VAEuncertainty-guidedsampling2Dpose-guidedrefinementSMPL
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

GenHMR is a proposed answer to a standing problem in monocular human mesh recovery: a single 2D image carries depth ambiguity and occlusions, so a single deterministic prediction can be wrong even when the image is visually clear. The paper argues that the 2D-to-3D mapping should be modeled explicitly as a probabilistic image-conditioned generative task, and that the resulting uncertainty can then be reduced during inference by iterative sampling and by aligning the projected 3D mesh to 2D keypoint detections. Concretely, GenHMR quantizes SMPL pose parameters into discrete tokens with a vector-quantized variational autoencoder, trains an image-conditioned masked transformer to predict masked pose tokens, and at test time decodes high-confidence tokens while re-masking low-confidence ones, followed by a latent-space refinement that forces reprojected 3D joints to match 2D keypoints. The paper reports that this pipeline lowers Mean Per Joint Position Error by roughly 20-30% compared with state-of-the-art deterministic and probabilistic methods on Human3.6M, 3DPW, and EMDB. If these numbers hold, generative token modeling becomes a competitive alternative to deterministic regression for recovering human bodies from single images.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage generative pipeline. First, a vector-quantized variational autoencoder (VQ-VAE) based pose tokenizer maps SMPL pose parameters $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{24\times 3}$ into a discrete sequence of 96 tokens from a $2048\times 256$ codebook, giving the model a finite latent vocabulary of body poses. Second, an image-conditioned masked transformer with multi-scale deformable cross-attention learns $p(y_i \mid Y_M, X)$, the categorical distribution of each pose token given the image prompt $X$ and the currently unmasked token sequence $Y_M$; training uses random cosine masking and Gumbel-Softmax differentiable sampling so that SMPL-space, 3D-joint, and 2D-projection losses can flow through the discrete tokens. At inference, uncertainty-guided sampling re-masks low-confidence tokens across iterations, and then 2D pose-guided refinement directly updates the pose token embeddings by gradient descent on $|\Pi(K(J'_{3D})) - J_{2D}|^2$ plus a pose-regularization term, keeping the whole network frozen.

What would settle it

On a test set with ground-truth 3D meshes, add increasing amounts of noise to the OpenPose 2D keypoints used by the refinement stage; if MPJPE after refinement does not degrade monotonically with keypoint noise, or if a single corrupted keypoint flips the reconstruction, the claim that 2D-guided refinement drives the reported gains is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that treating monocular human mesh recovery as an image-conditioned generation problem over discrete pose tokens, rather than as a one-shot regression of SMPL parameters, lets a model explicitly capture 2D-to-3D ambiguity and then remove most of it at inference. The pose tokenizer converts SMPL pose parameters into a sequence of 96 discrete tokens drawn from a 2048-entry codebook, and the masked transformer learns the conditional distribution of each token given the image and the currently unmasked tokens. At inference, uncertainty-guided sampling iteratively predicts tokens, keeps the confident ones, and re-masks the rest, after which a 2D pose-guided refinement step optimizes the token embeddings in latent space so that the projected 3D joints match OpenPose 2D detections while the pose stays near its initial estimate. The paper reports state-of-the-art results on Human3.6M, 3DPW, and EMDB; for example, on 3DPW MPJPE drops to 54.7 mm versus 70.0 mm for HMR2.0, and on EMDB MPJPE drops to 68.5 mm versus 97.8 mm for HMR2.0.

Load-bearing premise

The refinement stage assumes that the 2D keypoints from the off-the-shelf detector are accurate and that a simplified perspective camera with identity rotation and a fixed focal length is adequate for reprojection, and this is the premise on which the headline error reductions rest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported benchmark numbers hold, GenHMR would set a new state of the art on Human3.6M, 3DPW, and EMDB simultaneously, with the largest gains on the in-the-wild EMDB dataset.
  • The ablation in Table 3 shows that the 2D pose-guided refinement stage, not the generative prior alone, is responsible for most of the final accuracy: on 3DPW, MPJPE falls from 68.1 mm after uncertainty-guided sampling to 54.7 mm after 20 refinement iterations.
  • Because the method is evaluated on 3DPW and EMDB without training on them, the paper's claim of generalizing to unseen in-the-wild data is part of the contribution.
  • The reported 20-30% MPJPE reductions relative to prior methods, if reproducible, would make probabilistic or generative human mesh recovery competitive with deterministic regression, a gap the paper identifies as previously open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The largest part of the accuracy gain is bought by optimization against external 2D keypoints, so GenHMR's margin over deterministic baselines may shrink whenever OpenPose detections are noisy, truncated, or systematically biased; this dependency is not stress-tested in the paper.
  • The simplified camera model used in refinement (identity rotation and a fixed focal length) is a likely ceiling: images with strong perspective or unusual camera intrinsics could be served better by estimating per-image focal length, a variant the paper does not explore.
  • The per-token confidence scores produced during uncertainty-guided sampling could be exported as an ambiguity or occlusion detector, which would make the method useful beyond reconstruction accuracy; this application is not claimed by the authors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GenHMR, a two-stage generative framework for monocular 3D human mesh recovery. In the first stage, a VQ-VAE pose tokenizer converts SMPL pose parameters into discrete tokens. In the second stage, an image-conditioned masked transformer with multi-scale deformable cross-attention learns to predict randomly masked pose tokens from image features. At inference, uncertainty-guided iterative sampling progressively decodes high-confidence tokens, followed by a 2D pose-guided refinement that optimizes the latent pose embeddings to align the projected mesh with OpenPose 2D keypoints. The authors report state-of-the-art results on Human3.6M, 3DPW, and EMDB, with 20-30% MPJPE reductions over prior methods, and provide extensive ablations in the appendix.

Significance. If the controlled comparison can be established, GenHMR would be a noteworthy contribution: it demonstrates that masked generative modeling of tokenized poses can match or beat deterministic regression, and the latent-space refinement is a novel mechanism for injecting 2D evidence at test time. The appendix is unusually thorough in covering tokenizer design, codebook size, token counts, temperature schedules, masking functions, feature resolutions, and loss ablations, which is a clear strength. However, the headline claim is currently confounded by the test-time 2D optimization that is not applied to baseline methods, and the absence of code, seeds/error bars, and precise inference settings limits verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Comparison to SOTA (Table 1) and 2D Pose-Guided Refinement (Table 3)] The headline comparison is not controlled because the final GenHMR numbers in Table 1 are produced after test-time refinement against OpenPose 2D keypoints, whereas the deterministic baselines (HMR2.0, TokenHMR) are evaluated without any equivalent test-time optimization. Table 3 shows that this refinement alone reduces 3DPW MPJPE from 68.1 to 54.7 mm (19.7%) and EMDB MPJPE from 88.2 to 68.5 mm (22.3%), which are of the same magnitude as the reported gains over the baselines. To support the SOTA claim, the authors should either add optimization-augmented baselines (for example, running the same 2D reprojection optimization on HMR2.0 and TokenHMR SMPL outputs) or explicitly separate the contribution of the generative model from the contribution of the test-time 2D optimization.
  2. [2D Pose-Guided Refinement (Eqs. 2-4)] The optimization in Eq. (4) updates continuous pose embeddings Yp, but the pose tokenizer was trained with discrete codebook entries and a straight-through gradient estimator. The paper does not specify how the refined continuous embeddings are mapped to SMPL pose parameters θ' used in the reprojection loss L2D and regularization Lθ', nor whether the final result is quantized back into the codebook. Because this refinement stage is central to the reported accuracy, the authors should describe the exact decoding path from refined embeddings to SMPL parameters and verify that the optimization respects the discrete latent structure.
  3. [Experiments (Table 1) and Appendix (Table 7)] The training protocol for the main results in Table 1 is unclear. Appendix Table 7 reports two GenHMR variants, SD+ITW and SD+ITW+BL, with 3DPW MPJPE values of 58.6 and 52.1 mm and EMDB MPJPE values of 74.6 and 67.5 mm, neither of which matches the 54.7 and 68.5 mm reported in Table 1. The paper should state which training set, backbone, and inference settings were used in Table 1 and explain the discrepancy with Table 7. Additionally, no multiple-seed statistics or error bars are reported, so it is unclear whether the observed differences over baselines are within run-to-run variance.
  4. [Implementation Details and Camera Model (Appendix)] The exact inference configuration for the headline numbers is not specified in the main text. The main text states that 5-10 refinement iterations are sufficient, but the values in Table 1 correspond to the 20-iteration row of Table 3; the regularization weight λθ′ in Eq. (2) is never assigned a value; and the camera model in the Appendix fixes focal length and rotation to identity with no sensitivity analysis. Please report the exact number of refinement iterations, the value of λθ′, and the camera parameters used in Table 1, and include an ablation showing how sensitive the final numbers are to these choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2D Pose-Guided Refinement] There is a typo in the sentence '5 to 10 iterations is sufficient to yield satisfaroy enhancement' — 'satisfaroy' should be 'satisfactory'.
  2. [Method (Pose Tokenizer)] The sequence length L and codebook size are introduced in the method section but their values (96 tokens, 2048 x 256 codebook) appear only in the appendix implementation details; please define these symbols in the main text.
  3. [Evaluation Metrics] The AITI metric is defined as average inference time per image, but it is unclear whether it includes the time of the 2D pose detector (OpenPose) used in the refinement stage; please clarify what is included in the reported AITI values.
  4. [Uncertainty-Guided Sampling] The main text describes 'stochastic sampling' of tokens from their prediction distributions, while the appendix specifies 'greedy sampling with top-k = 1'; these descriptions should be reconciled because top-k = 1 with argmax is deterministic.
  5. [Appendix, Impact of Losses (Table 10)] In the row with only L2D and β, the reported MPJPE is 1160.6 mm and MVE is 1167.7 mm, which are orders of magnitude larger than all other rows; please double-check these values for a possible typo (for example, a decimal point or unit error).
  6. [Table 3] The H36M columns in Table 3 report only MPJPE and not MVE, while 3DPW and EMDB report both; for consistency, please include MVE for H36M as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: outputs are learned predictions refined with external 2D keypoints, not targets by construction.

full rationale

GenHMR's derivation chain is self-contained. The pose tokenizer is trained with a VQ-VAE reconstruction loss on AMASS/MOYO, and the image-conditioned masked transformer is trained to maximize the conditional log-likelihood of masked pose tokens given the image (Eq. 1), with auxiliary SMPL, 3D, and 2D losses. The final reported numbers come from a learned network plus a test-time optimization whose objective (Eqs. 2-3) penalizes reprojection error against OpenPose 2D keypoints, not against the 3D ground truth used in MPJPE/MVE. Thus the reported errors are not equal by construction to any fitted quantity. Components borrowed from prior work (VQ-VAE, MaskGIT-style cosine masking, Gumbel-Softmax, Deformable DETR) are external and are not used to foreclose alternatives by self-citation; the paper contains no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness argument. The principal caveat, that the 2D-pose refinement is not applied to the deterministic baselines, is an experimental-comparison fairness issue rather than circularity, because the refinement uses independent 2D observations rather than the evaluation target. No step reduces to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard ML assumptions: the body model, the lossy tokenizer, the quality of 2D pose detections, and the camera simplification. These are reasonable for the field but not proven. The hyperparameters listed are chosen by validation, which is standard practice but means the headline numbers are tuned to some degree.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of pose tokens = 96
    Selected based on tokenizer reconstruction error on AMASS validation (Table 6); affects all downstream results.
  • Codebook size = 2048 x 256
    Chosen as a trade-off between performance and efficiency (Tables 5 and 13).
  • Loss weights for masked transformer = lambda_mask=1.0, lambda_SMPL=1.5e-3, lambda_3D=5e-2, lambda_2D=1e-2
    Set by hyperparameter search; central to the reported performance.
  • Number of refinement iterations = 20
    Main results in Table 1 use 20 iterations; Table 3 shows this provides the reported gains.
  • Gumbel-Softmax temperature schedule = start 1.0, end 0.01, 50% annealing
    Chosen after ablations in Tables 8 and 9; affects training stability and final accuracy.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SMPL parametric body model sufficiently represents human pose and shape for the task.
    The entire method operates on SMPL parameters theta and beta; any pose outside SMPL's range is not recoverable.
  • domain assumption The VQ pose tokenizer preserves enough pose information for accurate downstream recovery.
    The pose is compressed to 96 discrete tokens; tokenizer has 8.5 mm MPJPE reconstruction error on AMASS, setting a floor.
  • domain assumption 2D keypoints from OpenPose are accurate enough on the evaluation datasets.
    The 2D pose-guided refinement optimizes against these detections; noisy detections would mislead the refinement.
  • ad hoc to paper A simplified perspective camera with identity rotation and fixed focal length is adequate.
    A fixed intrinsic matrix K and identity rotation are used for reprojection; this may not hold for in-the-wild images.
  • domain assumption The masked transformer's predicted token confidences are well-calibrated enough to guide iterative unmasking.
    Uncertainty-guided sampling re-masks low-confidence tokens; if confidences are miscalibrated, errors could be reinforced.
  • domain assumption Standard evaluation datasets and metrics (MPJPE, PA-MPJPE, MVE) are reliable indicators of 3D reconstruction quality.
    All conclusions rest on these benchmarks.
invented entities (1)
  • Discrete pose token codebook (2048 codes) independent evidence
    purpose: Converts continuous SMPL pose parameters into a sequence of discrete tokens for masked generative modeling.
    The codebook is a learned representation, not a physical entity. Its reconstruction fidelity is measured on AMASS and MOYO, external benchmarks, so it has a falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GenHMR: Generative Human Mesh Recovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37UY3CU5

@misc{pith2026241214444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GenHMR: Generative Human Mesh Recovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37UY3CU5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14444}
}
read the original abstract

Human mesh recovery (HMR) is crucial in many computer vision applications; from health to arts and entertainment. HMR from monocular images has predominantly been addressed by deterministic methods that output a single prediction for a given 2D image. However, HMR from a single image is an ill-posed problem due to depth ambiguity and occlusions. Probabilistic methods have attempted to address this by generating and fusing multiple plausible 3D reconstructions, but their performance has often lagged behind deterministic approaches. In this paper, we introduce GenHMR, a novel generative framework that reformulates monocular HMR as an image-conditioned generative task, explicitly modeling and mitigating uncertainties in the 2D-to-3D mapping process. GenHMR comprises two key components: (1) a pose tokenizer to convert 3D human poses into a sequence of discrete tokens in a latent space, and (2) an image-conditional masked transformer to learn the probabilistic distributions of the pose tokens, conditioned on the input image prompt along with randomly masked token sequence. During inference, the model samples from the learned conditional distribution to iteratively decode high-confidence pose tokens, thereby reducing 3D reconstruction uncertainties. To further refine the reconstruction, a 2D pose-guided refinement technique is proposed to directly fine-tune the decoded pose tokens in the latent space, which forces the projected 3D body mesh to align with the 2D pose clues. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that GenHMR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Project website can be found at https://m-usamasaleem.github.io/publication/GenHMR/GenHMR.html

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. State of the art (SOTA) methods, HMR2.0 (Goel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GenHMR Training Phase. GenHMR consists of two key components: (1) a Pose Tokenizer that encodes 3D human poses into a sequence of discrete tokens within a latent space, and (2) an Image-Conditioned Masked Transformer that models the probabilistic distributions of these tokens, conditioned on the input image and a partially masked token sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our inference strategy comprises two key stages: (1) Uncertainty-Guided Sampling, which iteratively samples high￾confidence pose tokens based on their probabilistic distributions, and (2) 2D Pose-Guided Refinement, which fine-tunes the sampled pose tokens to further minimize 3D reconstruction uncertainty by ensuring consistency between the 3D body mesh and 2D pose estimates. where Y represents pose token queries, pˆ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of 2D Pose-Guided Refinement on 3D pose reconstruction. Red circles highlight areas of errors after each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of mask tokens in each iteration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heatmap visualization of the Uncertainty-Guided Sampling Process. The heatmap illustrates the iterative decoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Choices of Mask Scheduling Functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: State-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, such as HMR2.0 (Goel et al. 2023) and TokenHMR (Dwivedi et al. 2024), utilize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results of our approach on challenging poses from the LSP (Johnson and Everingham 2011) dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The effect of 2D Pose-Guided Refinement on 3D pose reconstruction. The red circles highlight error-prone areas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Failure Cases of GenHMR in 3D Human Reconstruction: GenHMR often encounters errors when dealing with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexey, D. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2010.11929

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Andriluka, M.; Pishchulin, L.; Gehler, P.; and Schiele, B. 2014. 2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3686--3693

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Biggs, B.; Novotny, D.; Ehrhardt, S.; Joo, H.; Graham, B.; and Vedaldi, A. 2020. 3d multi-bodies: Fitting sets of plausible 3d human models to ambiguous image data. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 20496--20507

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Bishop, C. M. 1994. Mixture density networks

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Bogo, F.; Kanazawa, A.; Lassner, C.; Gehler, P.; Romero, J.; and Black, M. J. 2016. Keep it SMPL: Automatic estimation of 3D human pose and shape from a single image. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part V 14, 561--578. Springer

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Cai, Q.; Hu, X.; Hou, S.; Yao, L.; and Huang, Y. 2024. Disentangled Diffusion-Based 3D Human Pose Estimation with Hierarchical Spatial and Temporal Denoiser. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 882--890

    2024

  7. [7]

    Cao, Z.; Simon, T.; Wei, S.-E.; and Sheikh, Y. 2017. Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 7291--7299

    2017

  8. [8]

    T.; Rubinstein, M.; et al

    Chang, H.; Zhang, H.; Barber, J.; Maschinot, A.; Lezama, J.; Jiang, L.; Yang, M.-H.; Murphy, K.; Freeman, W. T.; Rubinstein, M.; et al. 2023. Muse: Text-to-image generation via masked generative transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00704

    arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Chang, H.; Zhang, H.; Jiang, L.; Liu, C.; and Freeman, W. T. 2022. Maskgit: Masked generative image transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11315--11325

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cho, H.; Ahn, J.; Cho, Y.; and Kim, J. 2023. Video inference for human mesh recovery with vision transformer. In 2023 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 1--6. IEEE

    2023

  3. [11]

    Cho, H.; and Kim, J. 2023. Generative approach for probabilistic human mesh recovery using diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4183--4188

    2023

  4. [12]

    Cho, Y. K. O. T.-H., Junhyeong. 2022. Cross-attention of disentangled modalities for 3d human mesh recovery with transformers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 342--359. Springer

    2022

  5. [13]

    Choi, H.; Moon, G.; Park, J.; and Lee, K. M. 2022. Learning to estimate robust 3d human mesh from in-the-wild crowded scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1475--1484

    2022

  6. [14]

    Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ding, M.; Zheng, W.; Hong, W.; and Tang, J. 2022. Cogview2: Faster and better text-to-image generation via hierarchical transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 16890--16902

    2022

  8. [16]

    K.; Sun, Y.; Patel, P.; Feng, Y.; and Black, M

    Dwivedi, S. K.; Sun, Y.; Patel, P.; Feng, Y.; and Black, M. J. 2024. TokenHMR: Advancing Human Mesh Recovery with a Tokenized Pose Representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1323--1333

    2024

  9. [17]

    Esser, P.; Rombach, R.; and Ommer, B. 2021. Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 12873--12883

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fiche, G.; Leglaive, S.; Alameda-Pineda, X.; Agudo, A.; and Moreno-Noguer, F. 2023. VQ-HPS: Human Pose and Shape Estimation in a Vector-Quantized Latent Space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08291

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ghazvininejad, M.; Levy, O.; Liu, Y.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2019. Mask-predict: Parallel decoding of conditional masked language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09324

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Goel, S.; Pavlakos, G.; Rajasegaran, J.; Kanazawa, A.; and Malik, J. 2023. Humans in 4D: Reconstructing and tracking humans with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14783--14794

    2023

  13. [21]

    A.; Vondrick, C.; Pantofaru, C.; Li, Y.; Vijayanarasimhan, S.; Toderici, G.; Ricco, S.; Sukthankar, R.; et al

    Gu, C.; Sun, C.; Ross, D. A.; Vondrick, C.; Pantofaru, C.; Li, Y.; Vijayanarasimhan, S.; Toderici, G.; Ricco, S.; Sukthankar, R.; et al. 2018. Ava: A video dataset of spatio-temporally localized atomic visual actions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision an...

    2018

  14. [22]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

  15. [23]

    Holmquist, K.; and Wandt, B. 2023. Diffpose: Multi-hypothesis human pose estimation using diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 15977--15987

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ionescu, C.; Papava, D.; Olaru, V.; and Sminchisescu, C. 2013. Human3. 6m: Large scale datasets and predictive methods for 3d human sensing in natural environments. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 36(7): 1325--1339

    2013

  17. [25]

    Jang, E.; Gu, S.; and Poole, B. 2016. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Johnson, S.; and Everingham, M. 2011. Learning effective human pose estimation from inaccurate annotation. In CVPR 2011, 1465--1472. IEEE

    2011

  19. [27]

    J.; Jacobs, D

    Kanazawa, A.; Black, M. J.; Jacobs, D. W.; and Malik, J. 2018. End-to-end recovery of human shape and pose. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 7122--7131

    2018

  20. [28]

    Y.; Felsen, P.; and Malik, J

    Kanazawa, A.; Zhang, J. Y.; Felsen, P.; and Malik, J. 2019. Learning 3d human dynamics from video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5614--5623

    2019

  21. [29]

    J.; and Hilliges, O

    Kaufmann, M.; Song, J.; Guo, C.; Shen, K.; Jiang, T.; Tang, C.; Z \'a rate, J. J.; and Hilliges, O. 2023. Emdb: The electromagnetic database of global 3d human pose and shape in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14632--14643

    2023

  22. [30]

    P.; Hilliges, O.; and Black, M

    Kocabas, M.; Huang, C.-H. P.; Hilliges, O.; and Black, M. J. 2021. PARE: Part attention regressor for 3D human body estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 11127--11137

    2021

  23. [31]

    J.; and Daniilidis, K

    Kolotouros, N.; Pavlakos, G.; Black, M. J.; and Daniilidis, K. 2019. Learning to reconstruct 3D human pose and shape via model-fitting in the loop. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2252--2261

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kolotouros, N.; Pavlakos, G.; Jayaraman, D.; and Daniilidis, K. 2021. Probabilistic modeling for human mesh recovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 11605--11614

    2021

  25. [33]

    J.; and Gehler, P

    Lassner, C.; Romero, J.; Kiefel, M.; Bogo, F.; Black, M. J.; and Gehler, P. V. 2017. Unite the people: Closing the loop between 3d and 2d human representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6050--6059

    2017

  26. [34]

    Li, C.; and Lee, G. H. 2019. Generating multiple hypotheses for 3d human pose estimation with mixture density network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9887--9895

    2019

  27. [35]

    Li, C.; and Lee, G. H. 2020. Weakly supervised generative network for multiple 3d human pose hypotheses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.05770

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Li, Z.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, S.; and Yan, Y. 2022. Cliff: Carrying location information in full frames into human pose and shape estimation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 590--606. Springer

    2022

  29. [37]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 1...

    2014

  30. [38]

    Loper, M.; Mahmood, N.; Romero, J.; Pons-Moll, G.; and Black, M. J. 2015. SMPL : A Skinned Multi-Person Linear Model. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 34(6): 248:1--248:16

    2015

  31. [39]

    Ma, X.; Su, J.; Wang, C.; Zhu, W.; and Wang, Y. 2023. 3d human mesh estimation from virtual markers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 534--543

    2023

  32. [40]

    F.; Pons-Moll, G.; and Black, M

    Mahmood, N.; Ghorbani, N.; Troje, N. F.; Pons-Moll, G.; and Black, M. J. 2019. AMASS: Archive of motion capture as surface shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 5442--5451

    2019

  33. [41]

    Mehta, D.; Rhodin, H.; Casas, D.; Fua, P.; Sotnychenko, O.; Xu, W.; and Theobalt, C. 2017. Monocular 3d human pose estimation in the wild using improved cnn supervision. In 2017 international conference on 3D vision (3DV), 506--516. IEEE

    2017

  34. [42]

    Omran, M.; Lassner, C.; Pons-Moll, G.; Gehler, P.; and Schiele, B. 2018. Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape estimation. In 2018 international conference on 3D vision (3DV), 484--494. IEEE

    2018

  35. [43]

    A.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M

    Pavlakos, G.; Choutas, V.; Ghorbani, N.; Bolkart, T.; Osman, A. A.; Tzionas, D.; and Black, M. J. 2019. Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10975--10985

    2019

  36. [44]

    Pavlakos, G.; Zhu, L.; Zhou, X.; and Daniilidis, K. 2018. Learning to estimate 3D human pose and shape from a single color image. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 459--468

    2018

  37. [45]

    Qian, L.; Zhou, H.; Bao, Y.; Wang, M.; Qiu, L.; Zhang, W.; Yu, Y.; and Li, L. 2020. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07905

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Shan, W.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Han, K.; Wang, S.; Ma, S.; and Gao, W. 2023. Diffusion-based 3d human pose estimation with multi-hypothesis aggregation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14761--14771

    2023

  39. [47]

    T.; Bindal, P.; Sharma, A.; and Jain, A

    Sharma, S.; Varigonda, P. T.; Bindal, P.; Sharma, A.; and Jain, A. 2019. Monocular 3d human pose estimation by generation and ordinal ranking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2325--2334

    2019

  40. [48]

    Sohn, K.; Lee, H.; and Yan, X. 2015. Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28

    2015

  41. [49]

    Tian, Y.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; and Wang, L. 2023. Recovering 3d human mesh from monocular images: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence

    2023

  42. [50]

    P.; Taheri, O.; Black, M

    Tripathi, S.; M \"u ller, L.; Huang, C.-H. P.; Taheri, O.; Black, M. J.; and Tzionas, D. 2023. 3D human pose estimation via intuitive physics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4713--4725

    2023

  43. [51]

    Van Den Oord, A.; Vinyals, O.; et al. 2017. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  44. [52]

    J.; Rosenhahn, B.; and Pons-Moll, G

    Von Marcard, T.; Henschel, R.; Black, M. J.; Rosenhahn, B.; and Pons-Moll, G. 2018. Recovering accurate 3d human pose in the wild using imus and a moving camera. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 601--617

    2018

  45. [53]

    Wehrbein, T.; Rudolph, M.; Rosenhahn, B.; and Wandt, B. 2021. Probabilistic monocular 3d human pose estimation with normalizing flows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 11199--11208

    2021

  46. [54]

    Williams, W.; Ringer, S.; Ash, T.; MacLeod, D.; Dougherty, J.; and Hughes, J. 2020. Hierarchical quantized autoencoders. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 4524--4535

    2020

  47. [55]

    Wu, J.; Zheng, H.; Zhao, B.; Li, Y.; Yan, B.; Liang, R.; Wang, W.; Zhou, S.; Lin, G.; Fu, Y.; et al. 2017. Ai challenger: A large-scale dataset for going deeper in image understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06475

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    G.; Zanfir, A.; Freeman, W

    Xu, H.; Bazavan, E. G.; Zanfir, A.; Freeman, W. T.; Sukthankar, R.; and Sminchisescu, C. 2020. Ghum & ghuml: Generative 3d human shape and articulated pose models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6184--6193

    2020

  49. [57]

    Zhang, Z.; Ma, J.; Zhou, C.; Men, R.; Li, Z.; Ding, M.; Tang, J.; Zhou, J.; and Yang, H. 2021. M6-UFC: Unifying multi-modal controls for conditional image synthesis via non-autoregressive generative transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14211

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zhu, X.; Su, W.; Lu, L.; Li, B.; Wang, X.; and Dai, J. 2020. Deformable DETR: Deformable Transformers for End-to-End Object Detection. ArXiv, abs/2010.04159

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  52. [60]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.