Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 98 references

PICO: Reconstructing 3D People In Contact with Objects

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 PICO claims that dense body-object contact correspondences — gathered at scale through a two-click annotation tool — make a single image enough to reconstruct 3D humans and objects in contact, across object classes no existing method…

desk verdict The dataset and the two-click contact transfer are genuinely valuable, but the in-the-wild generalization claim for the automatic pipeline is not actually tested in the paper as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17695 v1 pith:YIRZOA6P submitted 2025-04-24 cs.CV

Alpár Cseke , Shashank Tripathi , Sai Kumar Dwivedi , Arjun Lakshmipathy , Agniv Chatterjee , Michael J. Black , Dimitrios Tzionas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dhuman-objectinteractioncontactcorrespondencessingle-imagereconstructionmeshretrievalcontact-awarefittingcrowdsourcedannotationin-the-wildgeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that dense, vertex-level contact correspondences between a person and the object they touch can be obtained for natural images at scale, and that these correspondences are enough to reconstruct both the 3D body mesh and the 3D object mesh from a single photo, including object classes that no existing method handles. To support the claim, the authors build PICO-db, a dataset of 4,123 images that pairs existing body-contact annotations with retrieved object meshes and object-side contacts, linked by bijective body-object correspondences established through a two-click, axis-based transfer tool. They then build PICO-fit, a three-stage optimization that uses retrieved contact correspondences to register the object to the body, align both to image masks, and refine the contacting limbs of the human pose. If the claim is right, joint 3D human-object reconstruction no longer needs pre-known object shapes or category-specific contact rules, which is what has confined the field to controlled settings.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by one geometric device, the contact axis. Each body contact patch, a cluster of neighboring vertices, is reduced to an axis — an open curve computed by principal component analysis on the patch vertices — so that the whole patch can be re-parameterized on any other surface by specifying only the axis start and orientation, which takes two clicks. This is what makes PICO-db's bijective body-object correspondences cheap to produce and what lets PICO-fit treat contact as a transferable constraint rather than a per-category rule. Around that device sits the retrieval loop, which uses OpenShape's joint image-and-shape embedding space to fetch a matching mesh from the Objaverse-derived database, and the three-stage optimization whose losses are the contact distance, an SDF-based penetration term, IoU mask alignment, and a pose-proximity regularizer applied only to the kinematic chain leading to the contacting limb.

What would settle it

Take an image set with known ground-truth human-object meshes, run PICO-fit twice per image — once with the original DECO+GPT-4V contact prediction and once with that prediction deliberately corrupted — and measure the endpoint Chamfer distance gap; a large gap would confirm that retrieval error, not the fitting stages, bounds accuracy. A second direct test: images whose object class appears nowhere in PICO-db should visibly degrade, showing that cross-class generalization is bounded by database coverage rather than by the fitting machinery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a nearest-neighbor lookup in a database of contact examples, followed by render-and-compare optimization, recovers 3D human and object meshes in interaction from a single image, and does so for object categories no existing method can tackle. The pipeline turns body contact into a query: a contact predictor (DECO) augmented by a vision-language model (GPT-4V) decides which body parts touch the object; the highest-IoU match in PICO-db returns the object's 3D mesh, the object-side contact, and the dense body-object point correspondences without further annotation; and a three-stage fit uses those correspondences to place the object against the body, align the object to the image mask, and refine the pose of the contacting limb. The authors report that the full system beats prior optimization- and regression-based methods on both an out-of-domain lab dataset and a perceptual study on in-the-wild images, and that it extends to object classes — couches, bananas, frisbees — that lie outside all existing baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that the body-contact prediction from DECO plus GPT-4V — whose F1 score the paper reports as only 0.35 — is accurate enough that the nearest-neighbor lookup in PICO-db returns the right object mesh, the right object-side contact, and the right correspondences; when the contact prediction is wrong the retrieved object and contact are wrong and the three-stage fit has no way to recover, a failure the paper's own analysis attributes to incorrect contact prediction in 85 of 500 sampled cases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 3D human-object interaction recovery no longer needs a known object shape or category: any object that can be retrieved from a growing mesh database becomes a candidate for joint 3D reconstruction from a single photo.
  • The two-click, axis-based contact transfer makes dense body-object contact annotation cheap enough to scale, so contact supervision can be extended to new object classes without redesigning the annotation tool.
  • Contact correspondences act as the geometric prior that resolves depth and occlusion ambiguity during fitting; the supplement's ablation shows object Chamfer distance worsens from 13.3 cm to 34.4 cm when the contact-registration stage is removed.
  • PICO-db's paired contact data makes a feed-forward contact and correspondence regressor feasible, which the paper names as the path to replacing the nearest-neighbor lookup and scaling further.
  • Because object scale is estimated per instance from the image rather than per class, the method adapts to atypical object sizes instead of assuming a category-average scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim is right, the real ceiling on generalization is database density rather than model capacity: success on a given object class should track how many similar interactions already sit in PICO-db, a prediction testable by plotting per-class reconstruction accuracy against per-class image counts.
  • The two-click axis projection is a general shape-to-shape contact-transfer mechanism, not a body-specific one; it could be reused for grasp transfer to robot hands, functional-part labeling, or annotating contacts on deformable objects, none of which the paper pursues.
  • The paper's failure counts — 85 of 500 failures traced to contact prediction and 12 to wrong object retrieval — suggest that improving the contact estimator would buy more accuracy than further tuning the fitting stages; the feed-forward contact regressor the paper proposes as future work is the direct test of that hypothesis.
  • Because object retrieval runs in a joint image-text-shape embedding space, the same pipeline could be driven by a text description of the object instead of the image crop with no architectural change, opening the door to text-conditioned human-object interaction reconstruction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PICO, a framework for reconstructing 3D human-object interactions from a single RGB image. It contributes PICO-db, a dataset of 4,123 in-the-wild images (drawn from DAMON) with dense vertex-level contact annotations on both body and object, plus bijective correspondences, obtained by retrieving object meshes via OpenShape and transferring body contact patches through a crowd-sourced two-click axis-based method. The second contribution is PICO-fit, an optimization pipeline that initializes body pose and shape with OSX, retrieves an object mesh and contact correspondences from PICO-db (using DECO+GPT-4V body contact as the query), and then fits the body and object meshes to image evidence in three stages using contact, mask, penetration, and regularization losses. The paper evaluates PICO-fit on InterCap (quantitative) and on in-the-wild images via a perceptual study, reporting improvements over PHOSA, CONTHO, and HDM.

Significance. If the automatic pipeline works as claimed, PICO would be a meaningful step toward scaling HOI reconstruction to arbitrary object categories without a-priori object models, and PICO-db would be a valuable resource with dense bijective contact correspondences. The paper also contains an unusually honest failure analysis (Sec. S.3.5) and provides quantitative InterCap results showing that the automatic PICO-fit is competitive with baselines that use ground-truth contact. However, the central generalization claim is currently supported mainly by PICO-fit* (with ground-truth contact), and the in-the-wild perceptual study appears to evaluate images that are included in PICO-db, raising a circularity concern. The automatic pipeline's in-the-wild performance is not quantitatively established. These issues are fixable with additional experiments, so the work is potentially significant but needs revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Sec. 3, Sec. S.1.5] The in-the-wild perceptual study in Sec. 5.2 selects 75 images 'randomly' from DAMON, and PICO-db is built from DAMON images (Sec. 3, Sec. S.1.5). The paper never states that these 75 images are excluded from PICO-db or from the retrieval index. Since Sec. 4.1 says that 'for PICO-db images, we use the associated annotations,' PICO-fit* on these images can use the exact object mesh, object contact, and correspondences that were created for that same image; the claimed 'retrieval' is then a lookup rather than a test of generalization. This compromises the central claim that PICO-fit generalizes to in-the-wild images, and it makes the comparison with PHOSA*/CONTHO* (which do not have access to PICO-db annotations) unfair. The authors should either exclude the 75 images from PICO-db before evaluation, or explicitly report how many of them are in PICO-db and rerun the study under an exclusion protocol.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Sec. 5.2, Tab. 1, Fig. 7, Sec. S.3.5] The abstract and Sec. 4 claim that PICO-fit 'works well for many object categories that no existing method can tackle,' but the quantitative evidence for the automatic pipeline is limited to InterCap, a 10-object in-lab dataset (Sec. 5.1). Table 1's right column and Fig. 7 use PICO-fit* with ground-truth contact, not the automatic DECO+GPT-4V contact inference and PICO-db retrieval that the method is supposed to contribute. The only in-the-wild automatic results are qualitative (Fig. 5) and the failure analysis (Sec. S.3.5), which reports 85/500 failures from incorrect DECO contact and 20/500 from invalid retrieved object contact. The authors should provide a quantitative evaluation of the full automatic PICO-fit on a held-out in-the-wild set, for example the DAMON test split with query images explicitly excluded from PICO-db, and report success rates or reconstruction errors rather than only preference rates.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] The perceptual study reports preference rates (e.g., 62.7% vs 37.3% for PHOSA) without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and the number of participants after filtering (73 out of 100 completions) and the number of images (75) are modest. Since this study is the only in-the-wild quantitative evidence in the paper, the authors should report per-image variance and run a statistical test (e.g., a permutation test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to support the claim that PICO-fit* is preferred 'much more' often. This is also needed to assess whether the 62.7% preference over PHOSA is distinguishable from chance after accounting for image difficulty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a stray LaTeX comment '/searcZoom in to see details' that should be removed.
  2. [Sec. S.1.5] The statement 'we use the same train, validation and test splits as the DAMON dataset' is ambiguous for the 75-image subset used in Sec. 5.2; the authors should clarify whether the perceptual study draws from the test split and whether those images are included in PICO-db.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The GPT-4V-based object scale initialization is described only in the supplement; a one-sentence description in the main text would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. S.3.2] The term 'chamfer distance' is used inconsistently with capitalization; the authors should standardize to 'Chamfer distance' throughout.
  5. [Sec. S.3.5] The failure analysis would be easier to interpret if the 500-sample study reported the total success count and the category breakdown of failures, rather than only the failure-mode counts.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

In-the-wild generalization claim is partially circular: the perceptual study uses PICO-fit* with PICO-db's own annotations on images drawn from the very DAMON pool used to build PICO-db, while the automatic retrieval pipeline can, without stated exclusion, look up the query image's own annotation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.2 (In-the-wild perceptual study); Tab. 1 caption; Sec. 4.1 (Contact initialization)]
    "We evaluate PICO-fit∗ against SotA methods on in-the-wild images through a perceptual study conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk. We randomly select 75 images from 42 object categories in the DAMON dataset ... For PICO-db images, we use the associated annotations."

    The paper's headline generalization claim ('PICO-fit works well for many object categories that no existing method can tackle') is supported by the in-the-wild perceptual study, but that study evaluates PICO-fit*, which is defined with ground-truth contact ('Using GT contact is highlighted with ∗'). The 75 images are sampled from DAMON, the same source pool from which PICO-db was constructed, and for PICO-db images the method consumes the associated PICO-db annotations directly. Thus the study measures fitting quality given the dataset's own contact correspondences, not the automatic DECO+GPT-4V contact inference and PICO-db retrieval that the abstract's claim depends on.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3; Sec. 4.1 (Contact initialization); S.1.5]
    "we use images from the recent DAMON dataset that are paired with contacts ... we retrieve from PICO-db the nearest-neighbor body contacts, and the respective object shape, object contacts, and body-object contact correspondences. ... Note that we use the same train, validation and test splits as the DAMON dataset."

    PICO-db is built from DAMON images and shares DAMON's splits, so every PICO-db image is a DAMON image by construction. For an unlabeled DAMON image processed by automatic PICO-fit, the PICO-db retrieval index contains that same image's body-contact annotation, object mesh, and correspondences. The IoU-based nearest-neighbor lookup of body contacts therefore has the query image's own ground-truth annotation inside its candidate set, and no passage states that query images are removed from the index. Consequently, the claimed ability to handle new object classes is not demonstrated against a retrieval database that provably excludes the query's own annotation; 'retrieval' can reduce to self-lookup for exactly the images used in the in-the-wild evaluations.

full rationale

The core quantitative evaluation on InterCap (Tab. 1, middle) is external: InterCap images are not part of PICO-db, and PICO-fit without ground-truth contact achieves competitive PA-CD scores against strong baselines. That part of the method is self-contained and independently supported, which is why the overall score is not higher. The circularity is confined to the in-the-wild claim: the perceptual study uses PICO-fit* with PICO-db's associated annotations on images sampled from the same DAMON pool used to build PICO-db, and the automatic retrieval component is never evaluated on a set guaranteed to be disjoint from the retrieval index. The paper is transparent about the asterisk notation and does ablate stages on InterCap, but the abstract and introduction present the in-the-wild results as evidence that the full automatic pipeline scales to novel object classes. Because that evidence is partly forced by the dataset's own annotations and by the unstated possibility of self-lookup, the headline generalization claim is partially circular. The DECO and ContactEdit citations are normal uses of prior work rather than load-bearing self-citation; they do not by themselves raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on five assumptions, all domain assumptions rather than mathematical axioms: the inherited DAMON contacts, the empirically bijective ContactEdit transfer, OpenShape retrieval quality, GPT-4V estimates, and the absence of leakage between PICO-db and evaluation images. The fitted quantities are optimization hyperparameters and an evaluation threshold, not physical constants. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Stage 2 loss weights = lambda_c=4, lambda_p=100, lambda_mo=0.4, lambda_so=4
    Chosen empirically (Sec. S.3.1); the object-image alignment objective depends on these weights and no validation-set tuning protocol is reported.
  • Stage 3 loss weights = lambda_c=4, lambda_p=50, lambda_mh=0.1, lambda_thetaC=0.05
    Chosen empirically; human refinement performance is sensitive to these weights.
  • Adam learning rates = 0.01 to 0.04 per parameter group
    Set by hand; higher for object rotation; no search details are reported.
  • GT contact distance threshold = 5 cm
    Used to extract ground-truth contacts from InterCap meshes for the starred upper-bound evaluations (Sec. 5.1); different thresholds would change the reported upper bounds.
  • Object retrieval candidate count = 3
    Annotators pick 1 of 3 OpenShape nearest neighbors (Sec. 3.1); affects dataset object quality and the difficulty of the annotation task.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DAMON body contact annotations are accurate enough as a starting point.
    PICO-db inherits DAMON's crowdsourced body contacts (Sec. 3); if these are wrong, all downstream correspondences are wrong.
  • domain assumption ContactEdit axis transfer gives valid bijective correspondences.
    Footnote in Sec. S.1.1: 'theoretically-guaranteed surjective, but empirically it is bijective'. The bijectivity claim is an empirical assurance, not a proof.
  • domain assumption OpenShape retrieval returns the correct object mesh.
    Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4.1 use nearest-neighbor retrieval from Objaverse-LVIS; retrieval quality bounds object pose and contact transfer.
  • domain assumption GPT-4V gives accurate object scale and contact refinement.
    Sec. S.2 reports object scale RMSE as 17.0 cm on InterCap; DECO F1 improves only from 0.29 to 0.35, so GPT-4V refinement is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Evaluation images are not in the PICO-db retrieval database.
    Sec. 4.1 retrieves from PICO-db for unlabeled images; PICO-db uses the same splits as DAMON, and the paper does not state that query images are excluded from the database, so in-the-wild results may use the same image's annotations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PICO: Reconstructing 3D People In Contact with Objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIRZOA6P

@misc{pith2026250417695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PICO: Reconstructing 3D People In Contact with Objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIRZOA6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17695}
}
read the original abstract

Recovering 3D Human-Object Interaction (HOI) from single color images is challenging due to depth ambiguities, occlusions, and the huge variation in object shape and appearance. Thus, past work requires controlled settings such as known object shapes and contacts, and tackles only limited object classes. Instead, we need methods that generalize to natural images and novel object classes. We tackle this in two main ways: (1) We collect PICO-db, a new dataset of natural images uniquely paired with dense 3D contact on both body and object meshes. To this end, we use images from the recent DAMON dataset that are paired with contacts, but these contacts are only annotated on a canonical 3D body. In contrast, we seek contact labels on both the body and the object. To infer these given an image, we retrieve an appropriate 3D object mesh from a database by leveraging vision foundation models. Then, we project DAMON's body contact patches onto the object via a novel method needing only 2 clicks per patch. This minimal human input establishes rich contact correspondences between bodies and objects. (2) We exploit our new dataset of contact correspondences in a novel render-and-compare fitting method, called PICO-fit, to recover 3D body and object meshes in interaction. PICO-fit infers contact for the SMPL-X body, retrieves a likely 3D object mesh and contact from PICO-db for that object, and uses the contact to iteratively fit the 3D body and object meshes to image evidence via optimization. Uniquely, PICO-fit works well for many object categories that no existing method can tackle. This is crucial to enable HOI understanding to scale in the wild. Our data and code are available at https://pico.is.tue.mpg.de.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17695 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present PICO, a novel framework for joint human-object reconstruction in 3D. PICO includes PICO-db, a unique dataset that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (dark-gray box). However, DAMON ignores objects. This is a key limitation. Moreover, it is non-trivial to extend this painting tool to include annotating contact on objects. In particular, one needs to ensure that the contacts “painted” on an object agree with those “painted” on the body. Therefore, to build PICO-db, we repurpose DAMON’s body contacts for objects, inspired by the ContactEdit [44] method. To this end… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example contact patches with their contact axis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of PICO-fit, a novel method for fitting interacting 3D body and object meshes to an image. It initializes (Sec. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of PICO-fit vs PHOSA on inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative evaluation of CONTHO∗ , HDM and PHOSA∗ alongside PICO-fit∗ on object categories handled by all baselines. From left to right: input image, pseudo-GT contact annotations in PICO-db, and 3D reconstructions (a side and top-down view per method). Reconstruction…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HOI reconstructions from PICO-fit∗ on new, previously untackled object categories. Each row (left to right) shows, for three input RGB images, PICO-fit∗ ’s estimated meshes overlaid on the image (camera view) and a side view. For more results, see Sup. Mat. 8 [PITH_FU…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pre-train, self-train, distill: A simple recipe for super- sizing 3D reconstruction

    Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Abhinav Gupta, and Shubham Tul- siani. Pre-train, self-train, distill: A simple recipe for super- sizing 3D reconstruction. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3763–3772, 2022. 3

    2022

  2. [2]

    Amazon Mechanical Turk

    Amazon Mechanical Turk. Amazon Mechanical Turk. https://www.mturk.com, 2024. 2

    2024

  3. [3]

    SDFit: 3D object pose and shape by fitting a morphable SDF to a single image

    Dimitrije Anti ´c, Georgios Paschalidis, Shashank Tripathi, Theo Gevers, Sai Kumar Dwivedi, and Dimitrios Tzionas. SDFit: 3D object pose and shape by fitting a morphable SDF to a single image. arXiv:2409.16178, 2025. 3

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Motion capture of hands in action using discriminative salient points

    Luca Ballan, Aparna Taneja, J ¨urgen Gall, Luc Van Gool, and Marc Pollefeys. Motion capture of hands in action using discriminative salient points. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 640–653, 2012. 5

    2012

  5. [5]

    A sensor fusion approach for recog- nizing continuous human grasping sequences using hidden markov models

    Keni Bernardin, Koichi Ogawara, Katsushi Ikeuchi, and Ruediger Dillmann. A sensor fusion approach for recog- nizing continuous human grasping sequences using hidden markov models. Transactions on Robotics (T-RO) , 21(1): 47–57, 2005. 4

    2005

  6. [6]

    BEHA VE: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions

    Bharat Lal Bhatnagar, Xianghui Xie, Ilya A Petrov, Cristian Sminchisescu, Christian Theobalt, and Gerard Pons-Moll. BEHA VE: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15935–15946, 2022. 3, 4, 6, S.4

    2022

  7. [7]

    Federica Bogo, Angjoo Kanazawa, Christoph Lassner, Peter Gehler, Javier Romero, and Michael J. Black. Keep it SMPL: Automatic estimation of 3D human pose and shape from a single image. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 561–578, 2016. 3

    2016

  8. [8]

    Kemp, and James Hays

    Samarth Brahmbhatt, Cusuh Ham, Charles C. Kemp, and James Hays. ContactDB: Analyzing and predicting grasp contact via thermal imaging. In Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8709–8719, 2019. 4

    2019

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    ContactGrasp: Functional multi-finger grasp synthe- sis from contact

    Samarth Brahmbhatt, Ankur Handa, James Hays, and Dieter Fox. ContactGrasp: Functional multi-finger grasp synthe- sis from contact. In International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2386–2393, 2019. 4

    2019

  2. [10]

    Twigg, Charles C

    Samarth Brahmbhatt, Chengcheng Tang, Christopher D. Twigg, Charles C. Kemp, and James Hays. ContactPose: A dataset of grasps with object contact and hand pose. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 361– 378, 2020. 4

    2020

  3. [11]

    Efficient mesh optimization schemes based on optimal delaunay triangulations

    Long Chen and Michael Holst. Efficient mesh optimization schemes based on optimal delaunay triangulations. Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 200 (9):967–984, 2011. S.1

    2011

  4. [12]

    Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas

    Yixin Chen, Sai Kumar Dwivedi, Michael J. Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas. Detecting human-object contact in images. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17100–17110, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Choy, Danfei Xu, JunYoung Gwak, Kevin Chen, and Silvio Savarese

    Christopher B. Choy, Danfei Xu, JunYoung Gwak, Kevin Chen, and Silvio Savarese. 3D-R2N2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3D object reconstruction. Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 9912:628– 644, 2016. 3

    2016

  6. [14]

    Objaverse-XL: A universe of 10m+ 3D objects

    Matt Deitke, Ruoshi Liu, Matthew Wallingford, Huong Ngo, Oscar Michel, Aditya Kusupati, Alan Fan, Christian Laforte, Vikram V oleti, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Eli VanderBilt, Anirud- dha Kembhavi, Carl V ondrick, Georgia Gkioxari, Kiana Ehsani, Ludwig Schmidt, and Ali Farhadi. Obja...

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3D objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3D objects. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13142–13153, 2023. ...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sai Kumar Dwivedi, Nikos Athanasiou, Muhammed Ko- cabas, and Michael J. Black. Learning to regress bodies from images using differentiable semantic rendering. In In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 11230–11239, 2021. 3

    2021

  9. [17]

    Black, and Dimitrios Tzionas

    Sai Kumar Dwivedi, Cordelia Schmid, Hongwei Yi, Michael J. Black, and Dimitrios Tzionas. POCO: 3D pose and shape estimation using confidence. InInternational Con- ference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 85–95, 2024. 3

    2024

  10. [18]

    Sai Kumar Dwivedi, Yu Sun, Priyanka Patel, Yao Feng, and Michael J. Black. TokenHMR: Advancing human mesh re- covery with a tokenized pose representation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 1323–1333,

  11. [19]

    Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas

    Sai Kumar Dwivedi, Dimitrije Anti ´c, Shashank Tripathi, Omid Taheri, Cordelia Schmid, Michael J. Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas. InteractVLM: 3D interaction reasoning from 2D foundational models. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025. 7

    2025

  12. [20]

    Haoqiang Fan, Hao Su, and Leonidas J. Guibas. A point set generation network for 3D object reconstruction from a single image. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2463–2471, 2017. 3

    2017

  13. [21]

    Black, and Otmar Hilliges

    Zicong Fan, Omid Taheri, Dimitrios Tzionas, Muhammed Kocabas, Manuel Kaufmann, Michael J. Black, and Otmar Hilliges. ARCTIC: A dataset for dexterous bimanual hand- object manipulation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 12943–12954, 2023. 4

    2023

  14. [22]

    Fouhey, Mikel D

    Rohit Girdhar, D. Fouhey, Mikel D. Rodriguez, and A. Gupta. Learning a predictable and generative vector repre- 9 sentation for objects. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 484–499, 2016. 3

    2016

  15. [23]

    ImageBind: One embedding space to bind them all

    Rohit Girdhar, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Zhuang Liu, Mannat Singh, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Armand Joulin, and Ishan Misra. ImageBind: One embedding space to bind them all. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15180–15190, 2023. 3

    2023

  16. [24]

    Humans in 4D: Reconstructing and tracking humans with transformers

    Shubham Goel, Georgios Pavlakos, Jathushan Rajasegaran, Angjoo Kanazawa*, and Jitendra Malik*. Humans in 4D: Reconstructing and tracking humans with transformers. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 14737–14748, 2023. 3

    2023

  17. [25]

    Twigg, Minh V o, Samarth Brahmbhatt, and Charles C

    Patrick Grady, Chengcheng Tang, Christopher D. Twigg, Minh V o, Samarth Brahmbhatt, and Charles C. Kemp. Con- tactOpt: Optimizing contact to improve grasps. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 4

    2021

  18. [26]

    Point-Bind & Point-LLM: Aligning point cloud with multi-modality for 3D understanding, generation, and instruction following

    Ziyu Guo, Renrui Zhang, Xiangyang Zhu, Yiwen Tang, Xi- anzheng Ma, Jiaming Han, Kexin Chen, Peng Gao, Xi- anzhi Li, Hongsheng Li, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Point-Bind & Point-LLM: Aligning point cloud with multi-modality for 3D understanding, generation, and instruction following. a...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Visual semantic role la- beling

    Saurabh Gupta and Jitendra Malik. Visual semantic role la- beling. arXiv:1505.04474, 2015. 4

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    CHORUS: Learning canon- icalized 3D human-object spatial relations from unbounded synthesized images

    Sookwan Han and Hanbyul Joo. CHORUS: Learning canon- icalized 3D human-object spatial relations from unbounded synthesized images. In International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pages 15835–15846, 2023. 4

    2023

  21. [29]

    Mohamed Hassan, Vasileios Choutas, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J. Black. Resolving 3D human pose ambigu- ities with 3D scene constraints. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2282–2292, 2019. 3, 5

    2019

  22. [30]

    Black, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid

    Yana Hasson, G ¨ul Varol, Dimitrios Tzionas, Igor Kale- vatykh, Michael J. Black, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated ob- jects. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11807–11816, 2019. 4

    2019

  23. [31]

    Chun-Hao Huang, Hongwei Yi, Markus H ¨oschle, Matvey Safroshkin, Tsvetelina Alexiadis, Senya Polikovsky, Daniel Scharstein, and Michael J. Black. Capturing and inferring dense full-body human-scene contact. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13264–13275, ...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas

    Yinghao Huang, Omid Taheri, Michael J. Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas. InterCap: Joint markerless 3D tracking of humans and objects in interaction from multi-view RGB-D images. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) , 132(7):2551–2566, 2024. 3, 4, 6, 7, S.4

    2024

  25. [33]

    Hand-object contact consistency reasoning for human grasps generation

    Hanwen Jiang, Shaowei Liu, Jiashun Wang, and Xiaolong Wang. Hand-object contact consistency reasoning for human grasps generation. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 4

    2021

  26. [34]

    Coherent reconstruction of multiple humans from a single image

    Wen Jiang, Nikos Kolotouros, Georgios Pavlakos, Xiaowei Zhou, and Kostas Daniilidis. Coherent reconstruction of multiple humans from a single image. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5578–5587, 2020. 5

    2020

  27. [35]

    Patterns of static prehension in normal hands

    Noriko Kamakura, Michiko Matsuo, Harumi Ishii, Fumiko Mitsuboshi, and Yoriko Miura. Patterns of static prehension in normal hands. American Journal of Occupational Ther- apy, 34(7):437–445, 1980. 4

    1980

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Panna Felsen, and Jiten- dra Malik

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Jason Y . Zhang, Panna Felsen, and Jiten- dra Malik. Learning 3D human dynamics from video. Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5607– 5616, 2019. 3

    2019

  29. [37]

    Beyond the contact: discovering comprehensive affor- dance for 3D objects from pre-trained 2D diffusion models

    Hyeonwoo Kim, Sookwan Han, Patrick Kwon, and Hanbyul Joo. Beyond the contact: discovering comprehensive affor- dance for 3D objects from pre-trained 2D diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 400–419, 2024. 4

    2024

  30. [38]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Segment anything. In International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 3

    2023

  31. [39]

    Muhammed Kocabas, Nikos Athanasiou, and Michael J. Black. VIBE: Video inference for human body pose and shape estimation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 5252–5262, 2020. 3

    2020

  32. [40]

    Huang, Otmar Hilliges, and Michael J

    Muhammed Kocabas, Chun-Hao P. Huang, Otmar Hilliges, and Michael J. Black. PARE: Part attention regressor for 3D human body estimation. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 11127–11137, 2021. 3

    2021

  33. [41]

    Convolutional mesh regression for single-image hu- man shape reconstruction

    Nikos Kolotouros, Georgios Pavlakos, and Kostas Dani- ilidis. Convolutional mesh regression for single-image hu- man shape reconstruction. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 3

    2019

  34. [42]

    Lakshmipathy, Dominik Bauer, and Nancy S

    Arjun S. Lakshmipathy, Dominik Bauer, and Nancy S. Pol- lard. Contact tracing: A low cost reconstruction framework for surface contact interpolation. In International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021. 4

    2021

  35. [43]

    Lakshmipathy, Dominik Bauer, Cornelia Bauer, and Nancy S

    Arjun S. Lakshmipathy, Dominik Bauer, Cornelia Bauer, and Nancy S. Pollard. Contact transfer: A direct, user-driven method for human to robot transfer of grasps and manipula- tions. In International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), 2022. 4

    2022

  36. [44]

    Lakshmipathy, Nicole Feng, Yu Xi Lee, Moshe Mahler, and Nancy S

    Arjun S. Lakshmipathy, Nicole Feng, Yu Xi Lee, Moshe Mahler, and Nancy S. Pollard. Contact Edit: Artist tools for intuitive modeling of hand-object interactions. Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(4), 2023. 2, 4, S.1

    2023

  37. [45]

    Black, and Peter Gehler

    Christoph Lassner, Javier Romero, Martin Kiefel, Federica Bogo, Michael J. Black, and Peter Gehler. Unite the people: Closing the loop between 3D and 2D human representations. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017. 3

    2017

  38. [46]

    HybrIK: A hybrid analytical-neural inverse kinematics solution for 3D human pose and shape estima- tion

    Jiefeng Li, Chao Xu, Zhicun Chen, Siyuan Bian, Lixin Yang, and Cewu Lu. HybrIK: A hybrid analytical-neural inverse kinematics solution for 3D human pose and shape estima- tion. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3383–3393, 2021. 3

    2021

  39. [47]

    PaStaNet: Toward human activity knowledge en- gine

    Yong-Lu Li, Liang Xu, Xinpeng Liu, Xijie Huang, Yue Xu, Shiyi Wang, Hao-Shu Fang, Ze Ma, Mingyang Chen, and Cewu Lu. PaStaNet: Toward human activity knowledge en- gine. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 382–391, 2020. 4

    2020

  40. [48]

    CLIFF: Carrying location information in 10 full frames into human pose and shape estimation

    Zhihao Li, Jianzhuang Liu, Zhensong Zhang, Songcen Xu, and Youliang Yan. CLIFF: Carrying location information in 10 full frames into human pose and shape estimation. In Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 590– 606, 2022. 3

    2022

  41. [49]

    Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3D content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3D: High-resolution text-to-3D content creation. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 3

    2023

  42. [50]

    One-stage 3D whole-body mesh recovery with component aware transformer

    Jing Lin, Ailing Zeng, Haoqian Wang, Lei Zhang, and Yu Li. One-stage 3D whole-body mesh recovery with component aware transformer. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 21159–21168, 2023. 3, 5, 6, S.5

    2023

  43. [51]

    Mesh graphormer

    Kevin Lin, Lijuan Wang, and Zicheng Liu. Mesh graphormer. In International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), 2021. 3

    2021

  44. [52]

    End-to-end hu- man pose and mesh reconstruction with transformers

    Kevin Lin, Lijuan Wang, and Zicheng Liu. End-to-end hu- man pose and mesh reconstruction with transformers. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 3

    2021

  45. [53]

    OpenShape: Scaling up 3D shape representation towards open-world understanding

    Minghua Liu, Ruoxi Shi, Kaiming Kuang, Yinhao Zhu, Xu- anlin Li, Shizhong Han, Hong Cai, Fatih Porikli, and Hao Su. OpenShape: Scaling up 3D shape representation towards open-world understanding. In Conference on Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

    2023

  46. [54]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3D object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tok- makov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3D object. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 3

    2023

  47. [55]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi- person linear model. Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 34 (6):248:1–248:16, 2015. 3, 4

    2015

  48. [56]

    COAP: Compositional articu- lated occupancy of people

    Marko Mihajlovic, Shunsuke Saito, Aayush Bansal, Michael Zollhoefer, and Siyu Tang. COAP: Compositional articu- lated occupancy of people. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 3

    2022

  49. [57]

    Miller and Peter K

    Andrew T. Miller and Peter K. Allen. GraspIt! A versatile simulator for robotic grasping. Robotics & Automation Mag- azine (RAM), 11:110 – 122, 2004. 4

    2004

  50. [58]

    Mitchell, David M

    Joseph S.B. Mitchell, David M. Mount, and Christos H. Pa- padimitriou. The discrete geodesic problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 16(4):647–668, 1987. S.1

    1987

  51. [59]

    PyMeshLab, 2021

    Alessandro Muntoni and Paolo Cignoni. PyMeshLab, 2021. S.1

    2021

  52. [60]

    Joint reconstruction of 3D human and ob- ject via contact-based refinement transformer

    Hyeongjin Nam, Daniel Sungho Jung, Gyeongsik Moon, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Joint reconstruction of 3D human and ob- ject via contact-based refinement transformer. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 3, 6, S.4

    2024

  53. [61]

    Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape es- timation

    Mohamed Omran, Christoph Lassner, Gerard Pons-Moll, Pe- ter Gehler, and Bernt Schiele. Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape es- timation. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) ,

  54. [62]

    Georgios Pavlakos, Vasileios Choutas, Nima Ghorbani, Timo Bolkart, Ahmed A. A. Osman, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J. Black. Expressive body capture: 3D hands, face, and body from a single image. In Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10975–10985, 2019. 3, 5

    2019

  55. [63]

    Barron, and B

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, J. Barron, and B. Mildenhall. Dream- Fusion: Text-to-3D using 2D diffusion. International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022. 3

    2022

  56. [64]

    Magic123: One image to high-quality 3D object generation using both 2D and 3D diffusion priors

    Guocheng Qian, Jinjie Mai, Abdullah Hamdi, Jian Ren, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Bing Li, Hsin-Ying Lee, Ivan Sko- rokhodov, Peter Wonka, Sergey Tulyakov, and Bernard Ghanem. Magic123: One image to high-quality 3D object generation using both 2D and 3D diffusion priors. In In- ternat...

  57. [65]

    3D Print Toolbox, 2024

    Mikhail Rachinskiy. 3D Print Toolbox, 2024. S.2

    2024

  58. [66]

    Grounded SAM: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks

    Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kunchang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, et al. Grounded SAM: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks. arXiv:2401.14159, 2024. 5, 6

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 3

    2022

  60. [68]

    FrankMo- cap: A monocular 3D whole-body pose estimation system via regression and integration

    Yu Rong, Takaaki Shiratori, and Hanbyul Joo. FrankMo- cap: A monocular 3D whole-body pose estimation system via regression and integration. In International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVw), pages 1749–1759,

  61. [69]

    Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L. Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with de...

    2022

  62. [70]

    PIFuHD: Multi-level pixel-aligned implicit function for high-resolution 3D human digitization

    Shunsuke Saito, Tomas Simon, Jason Saragih, and Hanbyul Joo. PIFuHD: Multi-level pixel-aligned implicit function for high-resolution 3D human digitization. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020. 3

    2020

  63. [71]

    R. Sawhney. FCPW: Fastest closest points in the west. https : / / github . com / rohan - sawhney / fcpw,

  64. [72]

    geometry-central.net,

    Nicholas Sharp, Crane Keenan, et al. geometry-central.net,

  65. [73]

    The vector heat method

    Nicholas Sharp, Yousuf Soliman, and Keenan Crane. The vector heat method. Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 38 (3), 2019. S.1

    2019

  66. [74]

    Delaunay refinement algo- rithms for triangular mesh generation

    Jonathan Richard Shewchuk. Delaunay refinement algo- rithms for triangular mesh generation. Computational Ge- ometry, 22(1):21–74, 2002. 16th ACM Symposium on Com- putational Geometry. S.1

    2002

  67. [75]

    HULC: 3D human motion capture with pose manifold sampling and dense con- tact guidance

    Soshi Shimada, Vladislav Golyanik, Zhi Li, Patrick P ´erez, Weipeng Xu, and Christian Theobalt. HULC: 3D human motion capture with pose manifold sampling and dense con- tact guidance. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 516–533, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022

  68. [76]

    Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas

    Omid Taheri, Nima Ghorbani, Michael J. Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas. GRAB: A dataset of whole-body human grasping of objects. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020. 4

    2020

  69. [77]

    Shashank Tripathi, Agniv Chatterjee, Jean-Claude Passy, Hongwei Yi, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J. Black. 11 DECO: Dense estimation of 3D human-scene contact in the wild. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 8001–8013, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, S.2

    2023

  70. [78]

    Huang, Taheri Omid, Michael J

    Shashank Tripathi, Lea M ¨uller, Chun-Hao P. Huang, Taheri Omid, Michael J. Black, and Dimitrios Tzionas. 3D human pose estimation via intuitive physics. In CVPR, pages 4713– 4725, 2023. 3

    2023

  71. [79]

    Liu, and Yu-Gang Jiang

    Nanyang Wang, Yinda Zhang, Zhuwen Li, Yanwei Fu, W. Liu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Pixel2mesh: Generating 3D mesh models from single rgb images. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018. 3

    2018

  72. [80]

    Reconstructing action- conditioned human-object interactions using commonsense knowledge priors

    Xi Wang, Gen Li, Yen-Ling Kuo, Muhammed Kocabas, Emre Aksan, and Otmar Hilliges. Reconstructing action- conditioned human-object interactions using commonsense knowledge priors. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 353–362, 2022. 3

    2022

  73. [81]

    Generalized an- thropomorphic functional grasping with minimal demonstra- tions

    Wei Wei, Peng Wang, and Sizhe Wang. Generalized an- thropomorphic functional grasping with minimal demonstra- tions. arXiv:2303.17808, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Holistic 3D human and scene mesh estimation from single view images

    Zhenzhen Weng and Serena Yeung. Holistic 3D human and scene mesh estimation from single view images. In Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 334– 343, 2021. 3

    2021

  75. [83]

    PlaNet - Photo geolocation with convolutional neural networks

    Tobias Weyand, Ilya Kostrikov, and James Philbin. PlaNet - Photo geolocation with convolutional neural networks. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 37–55, 2016. 5

    2016

  76. [84]

    3D ShapeNets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Lin- guang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 3D ShapeNets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1912–1920, 2015. 3

    1912

  77. [85]

    Beyond PASCAL: A benchmark for 3D object detection in the wild

    Yu Xiang, Roozbeh Mottaghi, and Silvio Savarese. Beyond PASCAL: A benchmark for 3D object detection in the wild. In Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 75–82, 2014. 3

    2014

  78. [86]

    CHORE: contact, human and object reconstruction from a single RGB image

    Xianghui Xie, Bharat Lal Bhatnagar, and Gerard Pons-Moll. CHORE: contact, human and object reconstruction from a single RGB image. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 125–145, 2022. 3, 5, 6

    2022

  79. [87]

    Visibility aware human-object interaction tracking from sin- gle RGB camera

    Xianghui Xie, Bharat Lal Bhatnagar, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Visibility aware human-object interaction tracking from sin- gle RGB camera. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 4757–4768, 2023. 3, 6

    2023

  80. [88]

    Template free reconstruction of human- object interaction with procedural interaction generation

    Xianghui Xie, Bharat Lal Bhatnagar, Jan Eric Lenssen, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Template free reconstruction of human- object interaction with procedural interaction generation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 3, 4, 6, S.4

    2024

  81. [89]

    Yuliang Xiu, Jinlong Yang, Xu Cao, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J. Black. ECON: Explicit clothed humans opti- mized via normal integration. In Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 3

    2023

  82. [90]

    Freeman, Rahul Sukthankar, and Cristian Smin- chisescu

    Hongyi Xu, Eduard Gabriel Bazavan, Andrei Zanfir, William T. Freeman, Rahul Sukthankar, and Cristian Smin- chisescu. GHUM & GHUML: Generative 3D human shape and articulated pose models. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6183–6192, 2020. 3

    2020

  83. [91]

    CPF: Learning a contact potential field to model the hand-object interaction

    Lixin Yang, Xinyu Zhan, Kailin Li, Wenqiang Xu, Jiefeng Li, and Cewu Lu. CPF: Learning a contact potential field to model the hand-object interaction. In International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 4

    2021

  84. [92]

    LEMON: Learning 3D human-object in- teraction relation from 2D images

    Yuhang Yang, Wei Zhai, Hongchen Luo, Yang Cao, and Zheng-Jun Zha. LEMON: Learning 3D human-object in- teraction relation from 2D images. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 4

    2024

  85. [93]

    EgoChoir: Capturing 3D human-object interaction regions from egocentric views

    Yuhang Yang, Wei Zhai, Chengfeng Wang, Chengjun Yu, Yang Cao, and Zheng-Jun Zha. EgoChoir: Capturing 3D human-object interaction regions from egocentric views. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024. 4

    2024

  86. [94]

    Shelf- supervised mesh prediction in the wild

    Yufei Ye, Shubham Tulsiani, and Abhinav Gupta. Shelf- supervised mesh prediction in the wild. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 3

    2021

  87. [95]

    Campbell, James Pikul, and Mark Yim

    Jessica Yin, Gregory M. Campbell, James Pikul, and Mark Yim. Multimodal proximity and visuotactile sensing with a selectively transmissive soft membrane. In International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), 2022. 4

    2022

  88. [96]

    Proximity and visuotactile point cloud fusion for contact patches in extreme deformation

    Jessica Yin, Paarth Sharh, Naveen Kuppuswamy, Andrew Beaulieu, Avinash Uttamchandani, Alejandro Castro, James Pikul, and Russ Tedrake. Proximity and visuotactile point cloud fusion for contact patches in extreme deformation. arXiv:2307.03839, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Zhang, Sam Pepose, Hanbyul Joo, Deva Ramanan, Jitendra Malik, and Angjoo Kanazawa

    Jason Y . Zhang, Sam Pepose, Hanbyul Joo, Deva Ramanan, Jitendra Malik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Perceiving 3D human-object spatial arrangements from a single image in the wild. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 34–51, 2020. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, S.4

    2020

  90. [98]

    ContactEdit

    Zhongqun Zhang, Hengfei Wang, Ziwei Yu, Yihua Cheng, Angela Yao, and Hyung Jin Chang. NL2Contact: Natural language guided 3D hand-object contact modeling with dif- fusion model. arXiv2:407.12727, 2024. 4 12 PICO: Reconstructing 3D People In Contact with Objects Supplementary M...

    2024

Pith tools

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