Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

GSAC: Leveraging Gaussian Splatting for Photorealistic Avatar Creation with Unity Integration

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 a single phone video can yield an animatable photorealistic avatar in under 40 minutes via Gaussian splatting.

desk verdict GSAC is a useful, open-sourced systems-integration paper, but the headline 'under 40 minutes' runtime claim isn't supported by the paper's own numbers, and the hand-correction equations as written double-count the angular update. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12999 v1 pith:HSO6QKJF submitted 2025-04-17 cs.GR cs.CV

Rendong Zhang , Alexandra Watkins , Nilanjan Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.CV
keywords photorealisticavatar3DGaussianSplattingmonocularvideoUnityintegrationvirtualrealityaugmentedSMPL-XGSACpipeline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that personalized photorealistic avatars no longer require multi-camera studios, hours of training, or manual 3D artistry. It claims an end-to-end pipeline that takes one phone-recorded video of a person rotating in front of a static camera, fits a parametric body model to every frame, trains a compact set of 3D Gaussians, and exports the result to Unity for real-time animation. The authors report training in roughly 12 to 16 minutes on a single high-end GPU after preprocessing, with about 25,000 Gaussians per avatar and frame rates above 60 FPS in Unity. If correct, this makes photorealistic avatars practical for VR and AR applications such as training simulation, telemedicine, and virtual collaboration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the binding of each 3D Gaussian to a polygon of the SMPL-X parametric body model, which includes hands, face, and expression parameters. Gaussians are initialized at polygon centers, and at every frame their position, rotation, and scale are recomputed from the polygon's scale, rotation, and translation, so appearance is deformed by the body model instead of by a separately learned deformation network. The preprocessing machinery that feeds this training is a co-registration loss combining 2D keypoints, face geometry, and regularization, plus a kinematic-chain extrapolation that estimates the positions of a hand that temporarily leaves the camera view using angular velocities of the arm segments.

What would settle it

On a sequence where a hand leaves and re-enters the frame, compare the hand keypoints extrapolated by Equations (5) through (10) with the keypoints detected in the frames immediately before disappearance and after reappearance; if the extrapolated positions overshoot by roughly the product of elapsed time and angular velocity, the double-count is present and the claimed benefit of the hand correction is not reproducible from the text.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Gaussian Splatting avatar can be produced from a single monocular video with no manual intervention, by first preprocessing raw frames into optimized SMPL-X parameters with face and hand details, then training Gaussians bound to SMPL-X mesh polygons, and finally rendering and animating them in a Unity editor. The paper reports that this pipeline is, to the authors' knowledge, the first open-source end-to-end implementation of its kind, and that on the PeopleSnapshot benchmark it achieves competitive quality metrics with a recent state-of-the-art avatar method while training about 230 seconds faster and using a comparable or smaller number of Gaussians. It also reports improved PSNR and SSIM when its hand-missing correction is enabled, and demonstrates novel-pose animation and compatibility with standard Unity animations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the kinematic-chain hand recovery of Equations (5) through (10) correctly estimates missing hand keypoints; as written the update appears to double-count the accumulated rotation, so if the implementation follows the equations the estimated hand positions overshoot and the reported quality gain from hand correction is not explained by the derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An avatar with roughly 25,000 Gaussians renders above 60 FPS in the Unity editor, which is fast enough for interactive VR and AR use.
  • A single consumer phone video plus one high-end GPU is enough to go from raw recording to an animatable avatar in well under an hour.
  • Because the Gaussians inherit the parametric body rig, the same avatar can be driven by Unity's built-in animations or by user-supplied joint positions, so motion-capture input can be attached without retraining.
  • The preprocessing step is the main time cost, at roughly 20 to 35 minutes for 80 to 120 frames, and the training stage is about 700 to 800 seconds on an RTX 4090, so the 40-minute budget is realistic under the stated hardware assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same pipeline should generalize to a wider range of body shapes and clothing styles, but the evaluation is limited to four benchmark subjects plus one volunteer, so the 40-minute and quality claims need testing on more diverse recordings.
  • Beyond the paper: if the hand-correction equations are corrected, the kinematic-chain idea could extend to other occluded joints, such as feet leaving the frame, and to lower-frame-rate phone capture where keypoint detection flickers.
  • Beyond the paper: the Unity pose controller implies a direct path to real-time motion-capture-driven avatars, which the paper mentions only as future work.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents GSAC, an end-to-end pipeline for creating animatable 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) avatars from a single monocular phone-recorded video, together with a Unity editor for posing and animation. The pipeline comprises a preprocessing stage that estimates SMPL-X parameters from 2D keypoints and DECA face priors, including a proposed hand-correction heuristic for missing hand keypoints; a training stage that adopts HAHA's Gaussian avatar framework; and a custom Unity editor. The authors compare against HAHA on four PeopleSnapshot subjects using PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS with repeated runs, and report faster training times and competitive quality. The headline claim is that the full pipeline produces a photorealistic avatar in under 40 minutes.

Significance. If the runtime and hand-correction claims were substantiated, this would be a practically useful open-source contribution: it is one of the few complete pipelines that takes raw monocular video to a Unity-ready, animatable 3DGS avatar, with code and Docker available. The quantitative comparison against HAHA is carefully set up (same masks, repeated runs, reported standard deviations), and the Unity editor with support for default animation is a concrete deliverable. However, the two most load-bearing claims—the end-to-end 40-minute bound and the correctness of the kinematic extrapolation—are not supported as written, so the current version overstates what is demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section I, Section VI, Section III.D, Tables II-III] The 'under 40 minutes' claim is not measured end-to-end. The only reported stage durations are 20–35 minutes for SMPL-X preprocessing (Section III.D) and roughly 697–806 seconds (approximately 11.6–13.4 minutes) for Gaussian training (Tables II and III). These two stages alone sum to 32–48 minutes, so the stated 40-minute upper bound does not follow from the reported numbers; the untimed ffmpeg conversion, Sapiens mask generation, and Unity export stages add further time. Please report a measured end-to-end wall-clock time on a representative input, or revise the claim to match the measured stages and state explicitly which stages are excluded.
  2. [Section III.A, Eqs. (5)–(10)] The kinematic update equations double-count the accumulated rotation. The text states that θ^{i-1} is the angle from the previous frame, and ΔT = i − t + n; then for frame i the increment added to θ^{i-1} is ΔT·ω. For the second missing frame (i = t−n+2), the previous frame already includes one step of ω, and the update adds 2ω, yielding a total offset of 3ω from the reference angle instead of 2ω. If θ^{i-1} were instead the reference-frame angle at t−n, the equations would be consistent, but that contradicts the stated definition and also makes the recursion non-sequential. Since the PSNR gains in Tables II and III are attributed to this hand correction, the ablation is not reproducible from the text. Please rewrite the recursion (e.g., θ^i = θ^{i−1} + ω) or redefine θ^{i-1} as the reference angle, and confirm which version was implemented.
  3. [Section III.D] The experimental protocol is internally inconsistent about the number of runs: the text first says the authors 'train and test Gaussian avatars three times' (one without hand correction, one with, one using HAHA's preprocessing) and then says they 'compute PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS ... by running each dataset five times and averaging the results.' Tables II and III report mean ± std over multiple runs, but it is unclear whether the statistics are over three or five runs. Please clarify the exact protocol.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors that should be corrected: 'summaried' (Section I), 'recontruction' (Section II.A), 'netural works' (Section II.A), 'initalizalized' (Section III.B), 'visable' (Section III.A), 'sufficent' (Abstract), and 'Liner Skinning Blind' (Section II.B). A thorough proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Section III.A] The text 'denoted ast−n' and 'denoted as t' lacks proper spacing and math formatting; the variables t−n and t should be defined more clearly in the surrounding prose.
  3. [Section IV.A] The claim that 'our full pipeline consistently requires less training time, with an average reduction of 230.1 seconds ± 3.41 seconds' is not backed by a table showing the average across subjects; please add a summary row or show the computation.
  4. [Tables II and III] The header 'GSAC (ours) preprocess' is ambiguous; consider 'GSAC (ours, without hand correction)' to match the third column's wording.
  5. [Section III.A] The face visibility criterion is described as 'angle greater than 135°' while the dot product condition is 'less than cos(135°)'; these are consistent, but the wording is easy to misread, and the threshold itself is not justified. Consider adding a reference or a brief explanation for the chosen angle.
  6. [Section IV.A] In the discussion of Female4, the phrase 'the PSNR is approximately 0.13 lower than the ground truth' appears to compare with the HAHA preprocessing result rather than the actual ground-truth images; please rephrase to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the pipeline is benchmarked against external HAHA data, and no prediction reduces to its fitted input by construction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The preprocessing stage relies on external models (DECA, Hand4Whole, mmpose, Sapiens) and is quantitatively compared with HAHA's preprocessed SMPL-X parameters on PeopleSnapshot subsets, with metrics computed against background-removed ground-truth images using HAHA's masks; the comparison is therefore against an external benchmark, not against the paper's own fitted values. The hand-correction equations (1)-(10) extrapolate missing 2D keypoints from angular velocities measured on visible frames; even if the update rule is mathematically questionable or double-counts the accumulated rotation, that is a correctness/reproducibility issue, not a circular reduction, because the corrected keypoints are not the evaluation target and the reported PSNR/SSIM improvement is measured on rendered images after Gaussian training. The 'under 40 minutes' headline claim is not supported by an end-to-end timing measurement, and the reported preprocessing (20-35 minutes) plus training (roughly 12-13 minutes) stages can already exceed the bound; this is an evidence gap rather than circularity. The self-citations (refs [1] and [8]) occur only in the motivational discussion of immersive avatars and MetaHuman customization and do not supply any load-bearing premise for the technical pipeline, training objective, or evaluation. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on a stack of pretrained models and hand-chosen constants. The only new mathematical content is the hand-keypoint extrapolation, which is ad hoc and, as written, inconsistent. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Confidence threshold for missing-hand detection = not specified
    Used in Section III-A to decide when a hand is missing; the value is not reported, so the hand-correction trigger is not reproducible.
  • Face visibility angle threshold = 135 degrees
    Section III-A states the face loss is applied only when the face angle exceeds 135 degrees; this threshold is hand-chosen.
  • Loss weights in L_SMPLX = 0.1, 10, 10000, 1, 0.01, 100, 1
    Weights in Equations (11)-(13); chosen by hand and not swept.
  • Number of frames n for angular velocity extrapolation = not specified
    Equation (4) uses n frames between disappearance and reappearance; no value or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Training iterations = 3000
    Mentioned in Limitations as the current setting; no ablation on iteration count is given.
  • Camera focal length approximation = approximated
    Section III-A says camera parameters are initialized with approximated focal lengths; the actual value is not given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SMPL-X parametric model accurately represents body, hands, face, and expression for the input subject.
    All avatar geometry is defined by SMPL-X fits; if SMPL-X fails for a subject, avatar quality collapses. Invoked throughout Section III-A.
  • domain assumption DECA provides reliable FLAME face parameters to guide the face loss.
    L_face in Equation (12) aligns SMPL-X face to DECA FLAME vertices; biased DECA output propagates into the fitted mesh and avatar.
  • domain assumption Hand4Whole and MMPose produce sufficiently accurate initial SMPL-X and keypoints for optimization.
    The pipeline initializes from Hand4Whole [43] and uses MMPose keypoints in L_kpt; incorrect detections distort the fit.
  • domain assumption Sapiens depth model segments the human subject correctly.
    Foreground/background separation via Sapiens [46] is used before SMPL-X fitting and training; segmentation errors in hair or clothing are acknowledged in Limitations.
  • domain assumption HAHA's Gaussian deformation and training framework transfers to custom SMPL-X fits without modification.
    Section III-B adopts HAHA's architecture and losses; if HAHA's framework implicitly relies on its own preprocessing distribution, results on arbitrary videos may differ.
  • ad hoc to paper The kinematic equations (5)-(10) correctly extrapolate missing hand positions.
    This is the paper's sole new derivation; as written it double-counts accumulated rotation, so the premise is unverified and likely incorrect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GSAC: Leveraging Gaussian Splatting for Photorealistic Avatar Creation with Unity Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HSO6QKJF

@misc{pith2026250412999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GSAC: Leveraging Gaussian Splatting for Photorealistic Avatar Creation with Unity Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HSO6QKJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12999}
}
read the original abstract

Photorealistic avatars have become essential for immersive applications in virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), enabling lifelike interactions in areas such as training simulations, telemedicine, and virtual collaboration. These avatars bridge the gap between the physical and digital worlds, improving the user experience through realistic human representation. However, existing avatar creation techniques face significant challenges, including high costs, long creation times, and limited utility in virtual applications. Manual methods, such as MetaHuman, require extensive time and expertise, while automatic approaches, such as NeRF-based pipelines often lack efficiency, detailed facial expression fidelity, and are unable to be rendered at a speed sufficent for real-time applications. By involving several cutting-edge modern techniques, we introduce an end-to-end 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) avatar creation pipeline that leverages monocular video input to create a scalable and efficient photorealistic avatar directly compatible with the Unity game engine. Our pipeline incorporates a novel Gaussian splatting technique with customized preprocessing that enables the user of "in the wild" monocular video capture, detailed facial expression reconstruction and embedding within a fully rigged avatar model. Additionally, we present a Unity-integrated Gaussian Splatting Avatar Editor, offering a user-friendly environment for VR/AR application development. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our preprocessing pipeline in standardizing custom data for 3DGS training and demonstrate the versatility of Gaussian avatars in Unity, highlighting the scalability and practicality of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed method, which consists of three main stages: (1) Data Preprocessing – A 1080 × 1080 frame is processed using state-of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of rendered results for each subject. (a) Full-body visualizations show that both our method and HAHA produce shapes closely matching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results on a volunteer’s video input, illustrating key steps of our pipeline. (a) Resized image frame(1080x1080) from input frame captured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of our Unity viewer, demonstrating three different poses—T-pose, A-pose, and a novel pose with a simple facial expression—for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstration of Gaussian avatars animated with Unity’s default animation system. (a) Avatar of Male4 animated with selected frames of dance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Every “body

    A. Watkins, A. Ullal, and N. Sarkar, “Every “body” gets a say: An augmented optimization metric to preserve body pose during avatar adaptation in mixed/augmented reality,” IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics , pp. 1–17, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Am i the odd one? exploring (in)congruencies in the realism of avatars and virtual others in virtual reality,

    D. Mal, N. D ¨ollinger, E. Wolf, S. Wenninger, M. Botsch, C. Wienrich, and M. E. Latoschik, “Am i the odd one? exploring (in)congruencies in the realism of avatars and virtual others in virtual reality,” Frontiers in Virtual Reality , vol. 5, Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1417066

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement,

    K. Kreijns, K. Xu, and J. Weidlich, “Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement,” Educational Psychology Review , vol. 34, 06 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A systematic review of social pres- ence: Definition, antecedents, and implications,

    C. Oh, J. Bailenson, and G. Welch, “A systematic review of social pres- ence: Definition, antecedents, and implications,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 5, 10 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria

    F. Biocca, C. Harms, and J. Burgoon, “Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria.” Presence, vol. 12, pp. 456–480, 10 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    A sneak peek at metahuman creator: high-fidelity digital humans made easy,

    E. Games, “A sneak peek at metahuman creator: high-fidelity digital humans made easy,” 2021, accessed: 2024-12-17. [Online]. Available: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/ a-sneak-peek-at-metahuman-creator-high-fidelity-digital-humans-made-easy

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Rodin: A generative model for sculpting 3d digital avatars using diffusion,

    T. Wang, B. Zhang, T. Zhang, S. Gu, J. Bao, T. Baltrusaitis, J. Shen, D. Chen, F. Wen, Q. Chen, and B. Guo, “Rodin: A generative model for sculpting 3d digital avatars using diffusion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 4563–4573

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    From Lab to a Long-Term Care Facility: Lessons Learned from Field Deployment of Augmented Reality Telepresence System as an Interactive Communication Technology ,

    M. Tauseef, A. Ullal, A. Watkins, Z. Ingram, C. Maxwell, J. Tate, L. Juckett, L. C. Mion, and N. Sarkar, “ From Lab to a Long-Term Care Facility: Lessons Learned from Field Deployment of Augmented Reality Telepresence System as an Interactive Communication Technology ,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adj...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on 3d human avatar modeling – from reconstruction to generation,

    R. Wang, Y . Cao, K. Han, and K.-Y . K. Wong, “A survey on 3d human avatar modeling – from reconstruction to generation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04253

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04079

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Video based reconstruction of 3d people models,

    T. Alldieck, M. Magnor, W. Xu, C. Theobalt, and G. Pons-Moll, “Video based reconstruction of 3d people models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , Jun 2018, pp. 8387–8397, CVPR Spotlight Paper

    2018

  4. [12]

    X-avatar: Expressive human avatars,

    K. Shen, C. Guo, M. Kaufmann, J. Zarate, J. Valentin, J. Song, and O. Hilliges, “X-avatar: Expressive human avatars,” Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” in ECCV, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, M. Tancik, P. Hedman, R. Martin- Brualla, and P. P. Srinivasan, “Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.13415

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, D. Verbin, P. P. Srinivasan, and P. Hedman, “Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.12077

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Instantavatar: Learning avatars from monocular video in 60 seconds,

    T. Jiang, X. Chen, J. Song, and O. Hilliges, “Instantavatar: Learning avatars from monocular video in 60 seconds,” June 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Doll´ar, and R. Girshick, “Segment anything,” arXiv:2304.02643, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Openpose: Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,

    Z. Cao, G. Hidalgo Martinez, T. Simon, S. Wei, and Y . A. Sheikh, “Openpose: Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hand keypoint detection in single images using multiview bootstrapping,

    T. Simon, H. Joo, I. Matthews, and Y . Sheikh, “Hand keypoint detection in single images using multiview bootstrapping,” in CVPR, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,

    Z. Cao, T. Simon, S.-E. Wei, and Y . Sheikh, “Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,” in CVPR, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Convolutional pose machines,

    S.-E. Wei, V . Ramakrishna, T. Kanade, and Y . Sheikh, “Convolutional pose machines,” in CVPR, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model,

    M. Loper, N. Mahmood, J. Romero, G. Pons-Moll, and M. J. Black, “SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model,” ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 248:1–248:16, Oct. 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Expressive body capture: 3D hands, face, and body from a single image,

    G. Pavlakos, V . Choutas, N. Ghorbani, T. Bolkart, A. A. A. Osman, D. Tzionas, and M. J. Black, “Expressive body capture: 3D hands, face, and body from a single image,” in Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2019, pp. 10 975–10 985

    2019

  16. [24]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” in Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Pixel- wise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger, E. Zheng, M. Pollefeys, and J.-M. Frahm, “Pixel- wise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Colmap- free 3d gaussian splatting,

    Y . Fu, S. Liu, A. Kulkarni, J. Kautz, A. A. Efros, and X. Wang, “Colmap- free 3d gaussian splatting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024, pp. 20 796–20 805

    2024

  19. [27]

    Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels,

    J. Fang, T. Yi, X. Wang, L. Xie, X. Zhang, W. Liu, M. Nießner, and Q. Tian, “Fast dynamic radiance fields with time-aware neural voxels,” in SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers , 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,

    G. Wu, T. Yi, J. Fang, L. Xie, X. Zhang, W. Wei, W. Liu, Q. Tian, and X. Wang, “4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024, pp. 20 310–20 320

    2024

  21. [29]

    Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis,

    J. Luiten, G. Kopanas, B. Leibe, and D. Ramanan, “Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis,” in 3DV, 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    Vibe: Video inference for human body pose and shape estimation,

    M. Kocabas, N. Athanasiou, and M. J. Black, “Vibe: Video inference for human body pose and shape estimation,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05656

    2020 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Monocular, one-stage, regression of multiple 3d people,

    Y . Sun, Q. Bao, W. Liu, Y . Fu, M. J. Black, and T. Mei, “Monocular, one-stage, regression of multiple 3d people,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12272

    2021 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Drivable 3d gaussian avatars,

    W. Zielonka, T. Bagautdinov, S. Saito, M. Zollh ¨ofer, J. Thies, and J. Romero, “Drivable 3d gaussian avatars,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08581

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Splatarmor: Articulated gaussian splatting for animatable humans from monocular rgb videos,

    R. Jena, G. S. Iyer, S. Choudhary, B. Smith, P. Chaudhari, and J. Gee, “Splatarmor: Articulated gaussian splatting for animatable humans from monocular rgb videos,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10812

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Gart: Gaussian articulated template models,

    J. Lei, Y . Wang, G. Pavlakos, L. Liu, and K. Daniilidis, “Gart: Gaussian articulated template models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16099

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    3dgs-avatar: Animatable avatars via deformable 3d gaussian splatting,

    Z. Qian, S. Wang, M. Mihajlovic, A. Geiger, and S. Tang, “3dgs-avatar: Animatable avatars via deformable 3d gaussian splatting,” 2024

    2024

  28. [37]

    Expressive whole-body 3d gaussian avatar,

    G. Moon, T. Shiratori, and S. Saito, “Expressive whole-body 3d gaussian avatar,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21686

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Haha: Highly articulated gaussian human avatars with textured mesh prior,

    D. Svitov, P. Morerio, L. Agapito, and A. D. Bue, “Haha: Highly articulated gaussian human avatars with textured mesh prior,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01053

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Gaussianavatar: Towards realistic human avatar modeling from a single video via animatable 3d gaussians,

    L. Hu, H. Zhang, Y . Zhang, B. Zhou, B. Liu, S. Zhang, and L. Nie, “Gaussianavatar: Towards realistic human avatar modeling from a single video via animatable 3d gaussians,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02134

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Converting video formats with ffmpeg,

    S. Tomar, “Converting video formats with ffmpeg,” Linux Journal, vol. 2006, no. 146, p. 10, 2006

    2006

  32. [41]

    Learning an animatable detailed 3D face model from in-the-wild images,

    Y . Feng, H. Feng, M. J. Black, and T. Bolkart, “Learning an animatable detailed 3D face model from in-the-wild images,” vol. 40, no. 8, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3450626.3459936

    2021

  33. [42]

    Learning a model of facial shape and expression from 4D scans,

    T. Li, T. Bolkart, M. J. Black, H. Li, and J. Romero, “Learning a model of facial shape and expression from 4D scans,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 194:1–194:17,

  34. [43]

    Accurate 3d hand pose estimation for whole-body 3d human mesh estimation,

    G. Moon, H. Choi, and K. M. Lee, “Accurate 3d hand pose estimation for whole-body 3d human mesh estimation,” in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW) , 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and benchmark,

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

    2020

  36. [45]

    K. M. Lynch and F. C. Park, Modern Robotics: Mechanics, Planning, and Control . Cambridge University Press, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://hades.mech.northwestern.edu/images/7/7f/MR.pdf

    2017

  37. [46]

    Sapiens: Foundation for human vision models,

    R. Khirodkar, T. Bagautdinov, J. Martinez, S. Zhaoen, A. James, P. Selednik, S. Anderson, and S. Saito, “Sapiens: Foundation for human vision models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12569 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Learning an animatable detailed 3d face model from in-the-wild images,

    Y . Feng, H. Feng, M. J. Black, and T. Bolkart, “Learning an animatable detailed 3d face model from in-the-wild images,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.04012

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,”

  40. [49]

    Design of an image edge detection filter using the sobel operator,

    N. Kanopoulos, N. Vasanthavada, and R. Baker, “Design of an image edge detection filter using the sobel operator,” IEEE Journal of Solid- State Circuits, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 358–367, 1988

    1988

  41. [50]

    Unity gaussian splatting,

    A. Pranckevi ˇcius, “Unity gaussian splatting,” https://github.com/aras-p/ UnityGaussianSplatting, 2023, accessed: 2024-12-29

    2023

  42. [51]

    Animatable neural radiance fields from monocular rgb videos,

    J. Chen, Y . Zhang, D. Kang, X. Zhe, L. Bao, X. Jia, and H. Lu, “Animatable neural radiance fields from monocular rgb videos,” 2021

    2021

  43. [52]

    Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image,

    G. Pavlakos, V . Choutas, N. Ghorbani, T. Bolkart, A. A. A. Osman, D. Tzionas, and M. J. Black, “Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.05866

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Dance animations free,

    K. Iglesias, “Dance animations free,” 2019, accessed: 2025- 03-26. [Online]. Available: https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/ animations/dance-animations-free-161313

    2019

  45. [54]

    The association of standardized patient educators (aspe) standards of best practice (sobp),

    K. Lewis, C. Bohnert, W. Gammon, H. H ¨olzer, L. Lyman, C. Smith, T. Thompson, A. Wallace, and G. Gliva-McConvey, “The association of standardized patient educators (aspe) standards of best practice (sobp),” Advances in Simulation , vol. 2, 12 2017

    2017

  46. [55]

    Standardized patient simulation for a graduate nursing program,

    L. Barber and J. Schuessler, “Standardized patient simulation for a graduate nursing program,” The Journal for Nurse Practitioners , vol. 14, 11 2017

    2017

  47. [56]

    Engaging young people as simulated patients: a qualitative description of health professional educators’ perspectives,

    A. Gamble, M. Bearman, and D. Nestel, “Engaging young people as simulated patients: a qualitative description of health professional educators’ perspectives,” BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 390–396, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://pmc.nc...

    2021

  48. [57]

    Effect of working with a standardized pediatric patient on the skills of nursing students in preparing children for a medical procedure,

    H. Zengin and B. Eren Fidanci, “Effect of working with a standardized pediatric patient on the skills of nursing students in preparing children for a medical procedure,” Clinical Simulation in Nursing , vol. 87, p. 101485, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect....

    2024

  49. [2017]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3130800.3130813

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3130800.3130813

  50. [2018]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03924

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03924

    arXiv

Pith tools

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