Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

PhysRig: Differentiable Physics-Based Skinning and Rigging Framework for Realistic Articulated Object Modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Physics-based skinning recovers motion linear blends miss

desk verdict PhysRig is a plausible differentiable MPM-based skinning framework with a novel material prototype parameterization, but its headline claim of beating LBS rests on an in-sample benchmark generated by its own simulator. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20936 v2 pith:DZTBBJ7H submitted 2025-06-26 cs.CV

Hao Zhang , Haolan Xu , Chun Feng , Varun Jampani , Narendra Ahuja This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords differentiablephysicssimulationmaterialpointmethodskinningrigginginverseprototypeslinearblendposetransfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that skinning an articulated character can be treated as an inverse physics problem: instead of blending bone transformations on the surface, embed the skeleton in a deformable volume, simulate the volume with a differentiable Material Point Method, and optimize the material parameters and driving-point velocities so the simulated surface matches observed motion. The stakes are practical: classic Linear Blend Skinning is simple but collapses joints, shrinks volume, and cannot represent soft tissue or flexible appendages, while physics-based skinning has been non-differentiable and hard to tune. PhysRig addresses the tuning problem by introducing material prototypes, a small vocabulary of learnable elastic properties, so the optimization space stays small and smooth. If the claim holds, animators, pose-transfer systems, and 4D generators can replace surface-weight blending with a physically consistent volume model that is still trainable by gradient descent.

What carries the argument

The engine is a differentiable Material Point Method (MPM) simulator with a Fixed Corotated hyperelastic constitutive model. Particles carry mass, velocity, deformation gradient, and volume; B-spline interpolation transfers them to an Eulerian background grid for stress-based force updates and back. The skeleton is injected through driving points, which write velocities into nearby grid nodes; material prototypes are Gaussian ellipsoids whose Mahalanobis-distance softmax weights blend Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio across the volume. An alternating scheme optimizes material parameters over whole sequences and driving-point velocities frame by frame.

What would settle it

Run the inverse-skinning procedure on motion capture of real soft tissue or on sequences produced by an independent finite-element solver; if the Chamfer-distance advantage over LBS shrinks or disappears on out-of-simulator data, the central claim of recovering realistic deformations fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the deformation of an articulated object can be recovered by inverting a differentiable continuum-mechanics simulator. PhysRig represents the object as particles in a soft-body volume driven by driving points that carry skeletal motion, and it learns both the volume's elastic parameters (Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, expressed through material prototypes) and the driving-point velocities by minimizing Chamfer distance to an observed mesh sequence. On the paper's synthetic benchmark, built from Objaverse, Mixamo, and Amazing Animals Zoo meshes with 120 motion-material cases, this inverse-skinning procedure yields larger user-study preference scores and lower Chamfer distances than three Linear Blend Skinning baselines, including one initialized with ground-truth skinning weights.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that synthetic motion sequences generated by PhysRig's own forward simulator are a reliable test bed for skinning realism, so the comparison with LBS is measured on the same model that generates the ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inverse skinning can recover not just surface motion but plausible internal elastic parameters for articulated objects.
  • Pose transfer no longer requires predicting skinning weights; driven volumes can adapt to novel skeletons and materials.
  • Soft regions such as trunks, ears, fatty tissue, and fins deform through stress propagation instead of linear blends, removing candy-wrapper and volume-loss artifacts.
  • The same volume representation accepts meshes, point clouds, and Gaussian splats, so it can slot into neural 4D reconstruction and generation pipelines.
  • Because the simulation is differentiable, material properties and motion can be optimized jointly with other losses in a deep learning loop.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The head-to-head with LBS is evaluated on synthetic sequences produced by PhysRig's own forward simulator, so the reported margin likely reflects in-sample fitting; a fair test would use real captured deformations or an independent solver.
  • A natural testable extension is to pretrain material prototypes on categories and transfer them to unseen characters, which the paper only gestures at.
  • The driving-point formulation resembles reduced-order control; combining it with reduced coordinates could cut the 100^3 grid cost and move the method toward real time.
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. PhysRig is a differentiable physics-based skinning and rigging framework that replaces linear blend skinning with a volumetric soft-body simulation. The object is discretized into a volumetric point cloud, skeletal motion is encoded through driving-point velocities, and a Material Point Method simulator with a fixed-corotated hyperelastic model (Eqs. 4–9) produces deformed positions X' = F(X, E, ν, v, Δt) (Eq. 1). Given an observed motion sequence, the method solves an inverse-skinning problem (Sec. 3.1.4) that alternates between optimizing material prototypes (per-prototype Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, Sec. 3.2) and per-frame driving-point velocities. For evaluation, the paper builds a synthetic dataset of 17 objects and 120 cases from Objaverse, The Amazing Animals Zoo, and MixaMo, with ground truth generated by the same MPM simulator (Secs. 4 and A.1), and reports user-study (UR) and Chamfer-distance (CD) comparisons against three LBS baselines (Table 1), component ablations (Table 2), a user study (Sec. A.4), and a pose-transfer demonstration (Sec. 4.3). The paper claims that PhysRig consistently outperforms LBS and produces more realistic and physically plausible deformations.

Significance. If its claims were established, PhysRig would be a genuinely useful contribution to articulated object modeling: it provides a differentiable inverse-skinning formulation that jointly recovers material properties and skeletal driving velocities through MPM, and the material-prototype parameterization (Sec. 3.2) is a compact, smooth way to represent spatially varying elasticity. The forward model is a standard MPM with the fixed-corotated energy, the alternating material/velocity optimization is described in enough detail to reproduce (Sec. A.2), and the authors ship a project page and a released dataset. These are real strengths. However, the central empirical claim — consistent superiority over LBS and more realistic deformations — is not supported by the presented evidence, because the benchmark ground truth is generated by the very same MPM formulation that the inverse model inverts, at the same 100^3 grid and 100-substep resolution (Secs. A.1 and A.2). The CD/UR margins in Tables 1 and 2 and the user-study preferences (Sec. A.4) are thus in-sample by construction and do not measure realism on independent data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 4, A.1, A.2] The evaluation is in-sample and does not establish the paper's central claim. Sec. 4 states that the authors 'generate a large amount of synthetic data using PhysRig', and Sec. A.1 confirms that each ground-truth sequence is produced by simulating the same MPM formulation with the same 100^3 grid and the same 100-substep, 4e-4 s time-step settings used in optimization (Sec. A.2). Each target mesh is therefore exactly F(X, E_gt, ν_gt, v_gt, Δt) from Eq. 1, and the optimizer in Sec. 3.1.4 minimizes a Chamfer loss between its own output of the same F and that target. Because LBS is not in this generative model class, the consistent CD and UR margins in Table 1 and the ablations in Table 2 show only that PhysRig can invert its own forward model; they do not show that PhysRig produces more realistic skinning for real or independently simulated objects. The user study (Sec. A.4) inherits the same confound because participants compare videos drawn from PhysRig's own deformation distribution. The paper itself defers real-world validation to future work (Sec. 5: 'integrating real-world priors'), which makes the absence of any independent test more, not less, consequential. To support the headline claim, the authors must evaluate on real captured deformation data (e.g., 4D scans) or at least on ground truth produced by an independently implemented simulator with different discretization, and they should restrict Sec. 4.1's claim that the method 'consistently outperforms all baselines' to what the evidence can support.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Table 1] The quantitative comparisons are reported without any measure of variability. Table 1 gives averages over the motion sequences of each object but no standard deviations, and the appendix's optimization procedure involves random initialization of prototypes and velocities (Sec. A.2), so repeated runs will produce a spread of CD and UR values. Without error bars or significance tests, the claimed margins over LBS-3 (e.g., Angelfish CD 0.021 vs 0.209, or Shark CD 0.016 vs 0.031) cannot be assessed, and the user-study scores in Table 1 have no uncertainty or inter-rater agreement statistics. Report per-sequence distributions and repeated-optimization statistics for the main comparisons.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 vs Sec. A.1] There is a mismatch between the method's stated parameters and what the evaluation actually tests. The method is described as learning a per-prototype Poisson's ratio ν ∈ R^P (Sec. 3), and the inverse-skinning objective is said to recover E, ν, and velocities (Sec. 3.1.4), but Sec. A.1 states that the dataset assumes a homogeneous Poisson's ratio for all objects. Consequently the experiments never test recovery of spatially varying ν, and Fig. 5 cannot validate that component. In addition, Fig. 5 is purely qualitative: no quantitative error metric between learned and ground-truth material properties (e.g., relative error in E and ν) is reported anywhere, so the material-recovery claim is not numerically supported.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] The pose-transfer experiment is qualitative only. It consists of a single figure (Fig. 3) with no quantitative metric, no comparison against an LBS-based pose-transfer baseline, and no evaluation across a set of motions or objects. It therefore does not provide independent support for the claimed versatility of the framework, and the cross-species generalization statement in Sec. 4.3 is not backed by measured results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. A.1 vs Table 1] The dataset description is internally inconsistent: Sec. A.1 reports 40 motion sequences giving 120 cases (40 original plus 80 material-configuration variants), while the caption of Table 1 says that the dataset 'consists of 17 diverse objects ... totaling 120 motion sequences'. Clarify whether the count is of sequences or of cases.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.3, Eqs. 7–10] The MPM update equations use inconsistent notation. The affine velocity-gradient matrix C_p in Eq. 7 is never defined, a separate velocity gradient ∇v^{t+1}_p is introduced in Eq. 9, and the driving-point update of Eq. 10 uses ∇v_i without defining a grid-node velocity gradient. In addition, the external force f_i appears inside the particle-to-grid sum in Eq. 7, whereas such forces are normally applied to the grid after the gather; please align the equations with a standard reference and define every symbol.
  3. [Table 2] Table 2 is hard to read: entries such as 'w/o Locating4.31 0.186' and 'Prototypes: 25- 0.147 - 0.229 - 0.023 2000' are missing separators, the convergence column mixes iteration counts with metric values, and the arrow in the 'Converge Iteration↓' header is ambiguous because CD is lower-better while UR is higher-better. Reformat the table and explain the symbols.
  4. [Sec. 3.3.1] The subsection heading 'Affinity-Based Seg via Spectral Clustering' contains a truncated word; spell out 'Segmentation'.
  5. [References] Several bibliographic entries are incomplete: [1] ('Adobe. Mixamo') has no year or venue, and [31] lists an animation studio name in place of a conventional author field; complete these entries for consistency with the journal's style.
  6. [Sec. 4.2, Table 2] The ablation text says that per-point materials 'struggle to find the optimal solution'; since per-point is strictly the most expressive representation, the favorable prototype results demonstrate better optimization convergence rather than higher expressiveness, and the text should state this interpretation explicitly rather than treating the comparison as a test of representational power.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline superiority claim is in-sample: ground-truth data are generated by PhysRig's own forward MPM simulator, so CD/UR tables and material-recovery plots largely measure the optimizer inverting its own simulator.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4 (Inverse Skinning Evaluation); Sec. A.1 (Dataset); Eq. (1); Fig. 4 caption]
    "Additionally, we generate a large amount of synthetic data using PhysRig, enabling a more comprehensive analysis of its optimization performance, particularly in learning material properties and driving point velocities."

    The ground-truth sequences are outputs of the same differentiable MPM forward map F in Eq. (1), i.e., X'_gt = F(X, E_gt, nu_gt, v_gt, dt), with the same grid and substep settings used for training (A.2). The inverse-skinning optimization then minimizes Chamfer distance between its own simulation F(X, E, nu, v, dt) and these self-generated targets (Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 4 caption). Since target and prediction come from the exact same code path, low CD and high UR in Table 1 and Table 2 measure self-reconstruction of the simulator rather than agreement with independent data. LBS baselines are outside the generative model class, so the comparison is structurally biased by construction. The A.4 user study rates exactly these in-sample sequences, so it inherits the same confound.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. A.1 (Dataset); Eq. (5) (Fixed Corotated model); Fig. 5]
    "To further assess PhysRig's ability to learn material properties, we provide two different material configurations for each of the 40 motion sequences, resulting in a total of 80 cases."

    The ground-truth material configurations are used to generate the dataset through the same Fixed Corotated constitutive model (Eq. 5) and MPM solver that PhysRig later optimizes. Fig. 5 compares the learned Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio to these self-generated values. This is a parameter-recovery check of the exact function that produced the data; it does not validate that the recovered materials match independently observed real soft-tissue behavior. The claim that PhysRig learns material properties is therefore a restatement of fitting the simulator to its own outputs, not a prediction against external ground truth.

full rationale

The central physics contribution is not circular: the forward MPM update (Eqs. 7-9) and the Fixed Corotated energy (Eq. 5) are standard, externally specified models, and the inverse-skinning gradients are a legitimate optimization over E, nu, and v for a fixed forward operator. The material-prototype compression is an architectural choice, not an equation that presupposes the target result. The circularity is in the evaluation chain. PhysRig's own benchmark is generated by PhysRig's forward simulator (Sec. 4), and the ground truth is therefore F(X, E_gt, nu_gt, v_gt, dt) with the same solver settings used for training (A.2). Reporting CD and UR against these self-generated targets, and comparing learned material parameters to the same constitutive parameters that generated the data (Fig. 5), establishes that the optimizer can invert its own simulator. It does not establish realism relative to independently captured or independently simulated deformation; LBS baselines are outside the generative model class, so the Table 1 margins are structurally expected. The user study (A.4) rates exactly these in-sample sequences. The only self-citation with any load (MagicPose4D [42], sharing a first author with this paper) appears in the pose-transfer section and is not central to the core claim, so it does not raise the score further. Score 6 reflects a partial, evaluation-level circularity: the method derivation is self-contained, but the headline superiority claim is in-sample by construction.

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

The central claim rests on a standard differentiable MPM forward model plus several modeling choices (material prototypes, homogeneous Poisson's ratio, driving point control) and, critically, on a benchmark generated by the method's own simulator. The forward physics is well-established, but the empirical superiority claim depends on assumptions that are not independently validated.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of material prototypes (P) = 25-200
    Hyperparameter chosen by hand (Table 2). Larger P gives marginal CD improvement (0.147 to 0.133) at more compute.
  • Driving points per joint (l) = 8
    Default setting in Sec. 3; controls how many velocity vectors parameterize each joint.
  • Affinity bandwidth (sigma)
    Eq. 12; controls clustering granularity of skinning-weight affinity matrix.
  • Joint variance threshold (tau)
    Sec. 3.3.2; threshold on skinning-weight variance to select joint vertices.
  • Time step and substeps = dt=4e-4 s, 100 substeps
    Sec. A.2; chosen for stability and accuracy.
  • Learning rates = velocity 5e-3 to 2e-2; material 20x
    Sec. A.2; hand-tuned per scenario.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Conservation of mass and momentum govern the deformation mapping
    Sec. 3.1.1, Eqs. 2-3; standard continuum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Fixed Corotated hyperelastic constitutive model adequately represents skin and soft-tissue response
    Eq. 5; a standard graphics elasticity model, but its fidelity to real articulated soft tissue is unvalidated.
  • standard math MPM discretization (B-spline P2G/G2P, affine velocity gradients) is a faithful solver for the continuum equations
    Sec. 3.1.3, Eqs. 7-9; cited to [9,12,13].
  • ad hoc to paper Material property at every point equals a softmax-weighted combination of P prototype materials via Mahalanobis distance
    Sec. 3.2, Eq. 11; a modeling choice to shrink the learning space, not derived from physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Homogeneous Poisson's ratio across all objects
    Sec. A.1: 'we assume a homogeneous Poisson's ratio for all objects' to simplify the inverse problem.
  • domain assumption Simulator-generated synthetic sequences are a valid proxy for real articulated deformation
    Sec. 4 and A.1; the entire benchmark is produced by PhysRig's own forward MPM simulator, so conclusions about realism rest on this premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PhysRig: Differentiable Physics-Based Skinning and Rigging Framework for Realistic Articulated Object Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZTBBJ7H

@misc{pith2026250620936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PhysRig: Differentiable Physics-Based Skinning and Rigging Framework for Realistic Articulated Object Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZTBBJ7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20936}
}
read the original abstract

Skinning and rigging are fundamental components in animation, articulated object reconstruction, motion transfer, and 4D generation. Existing approaches predominantly rely on Linear Blend Skinning (LBS), due to its simplicity and differentiability. However, LBS introduces artifacts such as volume loss and unnatural deformations, and it fails to model elastic materials like soft tissues, fur, and flexible appendages (e.g., elephant trunks, ears, and fatty tissues). In this work, we propose PhysRig: a differentiable physics-based skinning and rigging framework that overcomes these limitations by embedding the rigid skeleton into a volumetric representation (e.g., a tetrahedral mesh), which is simulated as a deformable soft-body structure driven by the animated skeleton. Our method leverages continuum mechanics and discretizes the object as particles embedded in an Eulerian background grid to ensure differentiability with respect to both material properties and skeletal motion. Additionally, we introduce material prototypes, significantly reducing the learning space while maintaining high expressiveness. To evaluate our framework, we construct a comprehensive synthetic dataset using meshes from Objaverse, The Amazing Animals Zoo, and MixaMo, covering diverse object categories and motion patterns. Our method consistently outperforms traditional LBS-based approaches, generating more realistic and physically plausible results. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of our framework in the pose transfer task highlighting its versatility for articulated object modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PhysRig is a differentiable physics-based skinning approach that models objects as soft-body volumes driven by embedded driving points, enabling realistic deformations and capturing complex dynamics across diverse topologies and motions—from humanoids to dinosaurs and flying creatures. Abstract Skinning and rigging are fundamental components in ani￾mation, articulated object reconstruction, motion transfer, and 4D g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of PhysRig. Given a 3D object, we first compute coarse skinning weights, which initialize embedded driving points for local deformation control. These points, assigned velocities, are linked to an elastic 3D volume with material parameters governing deformation. The differentiable physics-based skinning module generates natural deformations, optimizing velocities and material properties via backward propaga… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PhysRig enables pose transfer for generated objects. 4. Experiments In this section, we compare PhysRig with the traditional neural Linear Blend Skinning (LBS) method on the inverse skinning task, which serves as a fundamental component for various applications such as 3D video reconstruction and part decomposition. This comparison highlights PhysRig’s strong capability in dynamic modeling and optimization for artic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Animation results from the PhysRig approach. These results are obtained from the inverse skinning problem by optimizing material properties and driving point velocities to minimize the deviation from the ground truth mesh sequence. to the supplementary materials. 4.1. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the learned material properties with ground truth using our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative Comparisons of PhysRig and neural linear blend skinning using ground truth skinning weights as initialization. incorrect bone transformations, ultimately leading to unsatis￾factory results. Additionally, despite incorporating the least motion loss, LBS ofte…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of Material Prototype Centers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive introduction to our newly proposed dataset (Sec. A.1)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Scape: shape completion and animation of people.ACM Trans

    Dragomir Anguelov, Praveen Srinivasan, Daphne Koller, Se- bastian Thrun, Jim Rodgers, and James Davis. Scape: shape completion and animation of people.ACM Trans. Graph., 24 (3):408–416, 2005. 2

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Automatic rigging and anima- tion of 3d characters

    Ilya Baran and Jovan Popovi´c. Automatic rigging and anima- tion of 3d characters. 26(3):72–es, 2007. 5, 6, 7

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:35799–35813, 2023

    Matt Deitke, Ruoshi Liu, Matthew Wallingford, Huong Ngo, Oscar Michel, Aditya Kusupati, Alan Fan, Christian Laforte, Vikram V oleti, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, et al. Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:35799–35813, 2023. 1, 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Sync4D: Video Guided Controllable Dynamics for Physics-Based 4D Generation

    Zhoujie Fu, Jiacheng Wei, Wenhao Shen, Chaoyue Song, Xiaofeng Yang, Fayao Liu, Xulei Yang, and Guosheng Lin. Sync4d: Video guided controllable dynamics for physics- based 4d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16849, 2024. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Soft articulated characters with fast contact handling

    Nico Galoppo, Miguel A Otaduy, Serhat Tekin, Markus Gross, and Ming C Lin. Soft articulated characters with fast contact handling. InComputer Graphics Forum, pages 243–253. Wiley Online Library, 2007. 2

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Learning neural parametric head models

    Simon Giebenhain, Tobias Kirschstein, Markos Georgopou- los, Martin R ¨unz, Lourdes Agapito, and Matthias Nießner. Learning neural parametric head models. InProc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Gauhuman: Articu- lated gaussian splatting from monocular human videos

    Shoukang Hu, Tao Hu, and Ziwei Liu. Gauhuman: Articu- lated gaussian splatting from monocular human videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 20418–20431, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    A moving least squares material point method with displacement discontinuity and two-way rigid body coupling.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4):1–14, 2018

    Yuanming Hu, Yu Fang, Ziheng Ge, Ziyin Qu, Yixin Zhu, An- dre Pradhana, and Chenfanfu Jiang. A moving least squares material point method with displacement discontinuity and two-way rigid body coupling.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4):1–14, 2018. 2, 4

    2018

  2. [10]

    Dreamphysics: Learning physical properties of dynamic 3d gaussians with video diffusion priors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01476,

    Tianyu Huang, Haoze Zhang, Yihan Zeng, Zhilu Zhang, Hui Li, Wangmeng Zuo, and Rynson WH Lau. Dreamphysics: Learning physical properties of dynamic 3d gaussians with video diffusion priors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01476,

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Self- recon: Self reconstruction your digital avatar from monocular video

    Boyi Jiang, Yang Hong, Hujun Bao, and Juyong Zhang. Self- recon: Self reconstruction your digital avatar from monocular video. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5605–5615, 2022. 2

    2022

  4. [12]

    The affine particle-in-cell method.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 34(4):1–10,

    Chenfanfu Jiang, Craig Schroeder, Andrew Selle, Joseph Teran, and Alexey Stomakhin. The affine particle-in-cell method.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 34(4):1–10,

  5. [13]

    The material point method for simulating continuum materials

    Chenfanfu Jiang, Craig Schroeder, Joseph Teran, Alexey Stomakhin, and Andrew Selle. The material point method for simulating continuum materials. InAcm siggraph 2016 courses, pages 1–52. 2016. 2

    2016

  6. [14]

    Fast simulation of skeleton-driven deformable body characters.ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG), 30(5):1–19, 2011

    Junggon Kim and Nancy S Pollard. Fast simulation of skeleton-driven deformable body characters.ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG), 30(5):1–19, 2011. 2

    2011

  7. [15]

    Physics-based charac- ter skinning using multi-domain subspace deformations

    Theodore Kim and Doug L James. Physics-based charac- ter skinning using multi-domain subspace deformations. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGGRAPH/eurographics sym- posium on computer animation, pages 63–72, 2011. 2

    2011

  8. [16]

    Hugs: Human gaussian splats

    Muhammed Kocabas, Jen-Hao Rick Chang, James Gabriel, Oncel Tuzel, and Anurag Ranjan. Hugs: Human gaussian splats. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition, pages 505–515, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gart: Gaussian articulated template models

    Jiahui Lei, Yufu Wang, Georgios Pavlakos, Lingjie Liu, and Kostas Daniilidis. Gart: Gaussian articulated template models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 19876–19887, 2024. 2

    2024

  10. [18]

    J. P. Lewis, Matt Cordner, and Nickson Fong. Pose space deformation: a unified approach to shape interpolation and skeleton-driven deformation. InProceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, page 165–172, USA, 2000. ACM Press/Addis...

    2000

  11. [19]

    Skeleton-free pose transfer for stylized 3d characters

    Zhouyingcheng Liao, Jimei Yang, Jun Saito, Gerard Pons- Moll, and Yang Zhou. Skeleton-free pose transfer for stylized 3d characters. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 640–656. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Phys4dgen: A physics-driven framework for con- trollable and efficient 4d content generation from a single image.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16800, 2024

    Jiajing Lin, Zhenzhong Wang, Shu Jiang, Yongjie Hou, and Min Jiang. Phys4dgen: A physics-driven framework for con- trollable and efficient 4d content generation from a single image.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16800, 2024. 2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Physics3d: Learning physical properties of 3d gaussians via video diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04338, 2024

    Fangfu Liu, Hanyang Wang, Shunyu Yao, Shengjun Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Yueqi Duan. Physics3d: Learning physical properties of 3d gaussians via video diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04338, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. Smpl: a skinned multi- person linear model.ACM Trans. Graph., 34(6), 2015. 2

    2015

  15. [23]

    Magnenat-Thalmann and D

    N. Magnenat-Thalmann and D. Thalmann. Complex models for animating synthetic actors.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 11(5):32–44, 1991. 2

    1991

  16. [24]

    Efficient elasticity for character skinning with contact and collisions

    Aleka McAdams, Yongning Zhu, Andrew Selle, Mark Em- pey, Rasmus Tamstorf, Joseph Teran, and Eftychios Sifakis. Efficient elasticity for character skinning with contact and collisions. InACM SIGGRAPH 2011 papers, pages 1–12

    2011

  17. [25]

    Building efficient, accurate character skins from examples.ACM Trans

    Alex Mohr and Michael Gleicher. Building efficient, accurate character skins from examples.ACM Trans. Graph., 22(3): 562–568, 2003. 2

    2003

  18. [26]

    Npms: Neural parametric models for 3d deformable shapes

    Pablo Palafox, Aljaˇz Boˇziˇc, Justus Thies, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Npms: Neural parametric models for 3d deformable shapes. InProceedings - 2021 IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2021, pages 12675–12685. Institute of Electrical and Electr...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Humansplat: Generalizable single-image human gaus- sian splatting with structure priors.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 37:74383–74410, 2024

    Panwang Pan, Zhuo Su, Chenguo Lin, Zhen Fan, Yongjie Zhang, Zeming Li, Tingting Shen, Yadong Mu, and Yebin Liu. Humansplat: Generalizable single-image human gaus- sian splatting with structure priors.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 37:74383–74410, 2024. 2

    2024

  20. [28]

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

    Zhiyin Qian, Shaofei Wang, Marko Mihajlovic, Andreas Geiger, and Siyu Tang. 3dgs-avatar: Animatable avatars via deformable 3d gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pages 5020–5030, 2024. 2

    2024

  21. [29]

    3d pose transfer with correspondence learning and mesh refinement.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 34:3108–3120, 2021

    Chaoyue Song, Jiacheng Wei, Ruibo Li, Fayao Liu, and Gu- osheng Lin. 3d pose transfer with correspondence learning and mesh refinement.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 34:3108–3120, 2021. 2

    2021

  22. [30]

    A-nerf: Articulated neural radiance fields for learn- ing human shape, appearance, and pose.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:12278–12291, 2021

    Shih-Yang Su, Frank Yu, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, and Helge Rhodin. A-nerf: Articulated neural radiance fields for learn- ing human shape, appearance, and pose.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:12278–12291, 2021. 2

    2021

  23. [31]

    The Amazing Ani- mals Zoo Dataset

    Truebones Motions Animation Studios. The Amazing Ani- mals Zoo Dataset. 1, 2

  24. [32]

    Hu- mannerf: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video

    Chung-Yi Weng, Brian Curless, Pratul P Srinivasan, Jonathan T Barron, and Ira Kemelmacher-Shlizerman. Hu- mannerf: Free-viewpoint rendering of moving people from monocular video. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern Recognition, pages 16210...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Physgaussian: Physics- integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics

    Tianyi Xie, Zeshun Zong, Yuxing Qiu, Xuan Li, Yutao Feng, Yin Yang, and Chenfanfu Jiang. Physgaussian: Physics- integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4389–4398, 2024. 2

    2024

  26. [34]

    Econ: Explicit clothed humans optimized via normal integration

    Yuliang Xiu, Jinlong Yang, Xu Cao, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J Black. Econ: Explicit clothed humans optimized via normal integration. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 512–523, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Ghum & ghuml: Generative 3d human shape and articulated pose models

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6...

    2020

  28. [36]

    H-nerf: Neural radiance fields for rendering and temporal reconstruction of humans in motion.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:14955–14966, 2021

    Hongyi Xu, Thiemo Alldieck, and Cristian Sminchisescu. H-nerf: Neural radiance fields for rendering and temporal reconstruction of humans in motion.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:14955–14966, 2021. 2

    2021

  29. [37]

    Rignet: Neural rigging for articulated characters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00559, 2020

    Zhan Xu, Yang Zhou, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Chris Lan- dreth, and Karan Singh. Rignet: Neural rigging for articulated characters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00559, 2020. 5, 6, 7

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lasr: Learning articulated shape recon- struction from a monocular video

    Gengshan Yang, Deqing Sun, Varun Jampani, Daniel Vlasic, Forrester Cole, Huiwen Chang, Deva Ramanan, William T Freeman, and Ce Liu. Lasr: Learning articulated shape recon- struction from a monocular video. InCVPR, 2021. 2

    2021

  31. [39]

    Viser: Video- specific surface embeddings for articulated 3d shape recon- struction

    Gengshan Yang, Deqing Sun, Varun Jampani, Daniel Vlasic, Forrester Cole, Ce Liu, and Deva Ramanan. Viser: Video- specific surface embeddings for articulated 3d shape recon- struction. InNeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Banmo: Building animat- able 3d neural models from many casual videos

    Gengshan Yang, Minh V o, Natalia Neverova, Deva Ramanan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Hanbyul Joo. Banmo: Building animat- able 3d neural models from many casual videos. InCVPR,

  33. [41]

    Point-based modeling of human clothing

    Ilya Zakharkin, Kirill Mazur, Artur Grigorev, and Victor Lem- pitsky. Point-based modeling of human clothing. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14718–14727, 2021. 2

    2021

  34. [42]

    Magicpose4d: Crafting articulated mod- els with appearance and motion control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14017, 2024

    Hao Zhang, Di Chang, Fang Li, Mohammad Soleymani, and Narendra Ahuja. Magicpose4d: Crafting articulated mod- els with appearance and motion control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14017, 2024. 2, 8

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Open-nerf: To- wards open vocabulary nerf decomposition

    Hao Zhang, Fang Li, and Narendra Ahuja. Open-nerf: To- wards open vocabulary nerf decomposition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Com- puter Vision, pages 3456–3465, 2024. 2

    2024

  36. [44]

    Learning implicit representation for reconstructing articulated objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08809, 2024

    Hao Zhang, Fang Li, Samyak Rawlekar, and Narendra Ahuja. Learning implicit representation for reconstructing articulated objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08809, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S3o: A dual-phase approach for reconstructing dynamic shape and skeleton of articulated objects from single monocular video

    Hao Zhang, Fang Li, Samyak Rawlekar, and Narendra Ahuja. S3o: A dual-phase approach for reconstructing dynamic shape and skeleton of articulated objects from single monocular video. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 59191–59209. PMLR, 2024. 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Physdreamer: Physics-based interaction with 3d objects via video generation

    Tianyuan Zhang, Hong-Xing Yu, Rundi Wu, Brandon Y Feng, Changxi Zheng, Noah Snavely, Jiajun Wu, and William T Freeman. Physdreamer: Physics-based interaction with 3d objects via video generation. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 388–406. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [47]

    Automated 3d physical simulation of open-world scene with gaussian splat- ting, 2024

    Haoyu Zhao, Hao Wang, Xingyue Zhao, Hongqiu Wang, Zhiyu Wu, Chengjiang Long, and Hua Zou. Automated 3d physical simulation of open-world scene with gaussian splat- ting, 2024. 2 A. Appendix Section Due to page limitations in the main text, we have included additional supplemen...

    2024

  40. [48]

    A detailed description of theimplementation(Sec. A.2)

  41. [49]

    A qualitative comparison and analysis ofinverse skin- ningusing neural blend skinning weights (Sec. A.3)

  42. [50]

    Setup for User Study (Sec. A.4)

  43. [51]

    Visualization of Material Prototype Centers (Fig.7). A.1. Dataset To evaluate PhysRig and compare its performance against tra- ditional Linear Blend Skinning (LBS) methods, we construct a diverse simulation dataset tailored for the inverse skinning task. This dataset enables a...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.