Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 43 references

DynamicAvatars: Accurate Dynamic Facial Avatars Reconstruction and Precise Editing with Diffusion Models

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DynamicAvatars reconstructs moving 3D head avatars from video and edits them with text prompts.

desk verdict A plausible reconstruction system whose editing claims rest on an unspecified mapping net and an undefined 3D uplift objective; needs major method details before it can be evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15732 v1 pith:A4AL3FIV submitted 2024-11-24 cs.GR cs.CV

Yangyang Qian , Yuan Sun , Yu Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.CV
keywords dynamicheadavatars3DGaussiansplattingtext-guidededitingdiffusionmodelsLLM-guidedpromptsGANsupervisionFLAMEmeshnovelviewsynthesis
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

DynamicAvatars is a two-stage system that turns multi-view video of a person's head into a moving 3D avatar, then lets the user edit that avatar with natural-language prompts. The central claim is that combining two tracking signals—Gaussian splats (small oriented 3D blobs rendered to images) anchored to the FLAME face mesh, and Gaussian splats labeled by facial semantic region—lets the same model reconstruct sharp faces and keep edits attached to the right area as the head moves. Editing is stabilized by an LLM that rewrites user prompts into structured guidance and a GAN-based discriminator that enforces consistent color across frames. On the NeRSemble benchmark the paper reports reconstruction quality of PSNR 30.1 versus 29.3 for GaussianAvatars and a prompt-edit success rate of 67.5% versus 36.4% for GenN2N. The intended payoff is controllable avatars for film, games, and virtual reality in which expression changes, style transfers, and accessory additions stay realistic over time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is dual tracking over semantic-labeled 3D Gaussian splats—small oriented 3D blobs rendered into images—bound to the FLAME face mesh. In the modeling stage, each splat is first bound to a FLAME mesh triangle to preserve face structure, then tagged with a semantic label from a facial component identifier, so the same splats can be followed through time and across camera poses. A mapping network carries an editing mask from a baseline view to every target view by taking the target timestep and camera pose as inputs and applying bilinear interpolation on the time-pose plane, identifying which splats contribute to the edited region throughout the sequence. The editing stage then chains an LLM-based prompt preprocessing module (GPT-4) that turns a user prompt into structured instructions, a diffusion editor (DALL-E) that generates the edited images, and a conditional GAN discriminator that supervises color consistency. This chain is what lets edits apply to the whole dynamic avatar rather than to one frame.

What would settle it

Hold out one expression sequence or camera view from the NeRSemble training set, edit a spatially localized feature such as an earring using a prompt that names its position, and render the edited avatar across that held-out view; if the earring drifts, flickers, or disappears as the head moves, the claimed dynamic editing consistency is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that dynamic facial avatar reconstruction and precise editing should be built on one shared representation, not as separate steps. That representation is a set of 3D Gaussian splats bound to the FLAME mesh for structural rigidity, with each splat additionally labeled by a facial component identifier so that regions outside FLAME (hair, rings, hats) can also be tracked and edited consistently. During editing, a mapping network propagates a requested edit mask across time steps and camera poses, an LLM restructures the user's prompt into detailed instructions, a diffusion model renders the edited frames, and a discriminator removes color and texture artifacts around sensitive regions such as eyes and teeth. The authors state that this combination removes facial distortions and inaccurate head movements that hamper prior NeRF- and 3DGS-based avatars, and they support it with comparisons to GaussianAvatars, HeadStudio, PointAvatar, GaussianEditor, and GenN2N.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mapping network, trained on masks generated from the same NeRSemble training data, will correctly warp an editing mask to unseen time steps and camera poses; if that warping fails, the edited region will flicker, drift, or corrupt the avatar.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because reconstruction and editing share the same Gaussian splat representation, an edit made at any frame is defined over the whole moving sequence rather than a single image.
  • The semantic labeling of splats means accessories such as earrings, rings, and hats can be added or modified without breaking the FLAME-tracked face structure.
  • LLM prompt preprocessing and the GAN discriminator should allow prompts that specify relative positions and fine style details, where prior prompt-only editors fail.
  • On the reported benchmarks, the same pipeline improves both reconstruction fidelity and edit success, so dynamic editing no longer requires a separate edited-avatar retraining step per prompt.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the mapping network's generalization is the part to test first: if it transfers to unseen identities, expressions, or camera poses, the same pipeline could likely run on sparser or monocular capture rather than dense multi-view rigs.
  • Beyond the paper, because the editing backbone uses off-the-shelf GPT-4 and DALL-E, edit fidelity should improve automatically as those base models improve, without changes to the avatar representation.
  • Beyond the paper, the reported edit metrics measure instruction-following, not frame-to-frame temporal stability; a direct flicker or temporal-consistency metric on long sequences would be a natural next evaluation.
  • Beyond the paper, the densification and splitting schedule is fixed and the authors note it is not tuned; an adaptive module that densifies where the semantic mask changes could further improve fine accessory edits.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DynamicAvatars, a two-stage method for reconstructing dynamic 3D head avatars from multi-view video and for performing text-based edits on those avatars. The first stage binds Gaussian splats to a FLAME mesh with a ``dual-tracking'' mechanism and semantic masks; the second stage uses an LLM-based prompt preprocessor, a mask-warping mapping network, and a GAN-based discriminator to propagate edits across time and pose. Experiments on NeRSemble report improved reconstruction (PSNR 30.1 vs. 29.3 for GaussianAvatars, SSIM 0.907 vs. 0.865) and substantially higher edit-success rates (67.5% vs. 36.4% for GenN2N). The central claim is that the method enables precise dynamic editing of facial avatars, but the paper provides only high-level descriptions of the editing mechanism and does not define the evaluation protocol for edit quality.

Significance. If fully specified and validated, the proposed dynamic editing pipeline would be a useful contribution to the growing line of work on editable 3D Gaussian avatars. The paper identifies a real problem: static semantic masks fail in dynamic scenes where Gaussians move relative to the mesh, and existing prompt-based editing methods struggle with fine-grained spatial instructions. The reported reconstruction improvements are plausible and consistent with the qualitative figures. The paper also credits the use of an LLM for prompt restructuring, which is a reasonable design choice. However, the manuscript currently lacks the implementation details needed to assess the central editing claim: the mapping network is not described, the objective for lifting 2D edits back to 3D is missing, and the headline edit-success metric is undefined. The paper therefore has the shape of a system demonstration rather than a complete, reproducible method.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 5] The dynamic mask propagation step is the backbone of the editing pipeline, but the mapping network is not specified. The text states ``We train this module by utilizing the mask of the training dataset at different time and poses generated at the first stage'' without giving the architecture, loss function, or validation procedure. There is also no quantitative evaluation of the predicted masks (e.g., mask IoU on held-out timesteps or camera poses). Because the paper itself concedes that ``a labeled splat at time t0 may not contribute to the color of the corresponding semantic region at time t1,'' the correctness of the warp is load-bearing for the whole editing claim. Without these details, the claim of temporally consistent editing cannot be verified.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 6, Eq. (17)] The second editing stage is described only as ``latent manipulation,'' but no equation or algorithm explains how the edited 2D images update the 3D Gaussian model. Eq. (17) defines L_edit with L_rgb, L_gs, and L_G, yet there is no ground-truth edited image I_edited; the text does not specify which rendered frames are compared with which edited images, how per-frame edits are fused, or how gradients flow to the Gaussian splats. This omission is load-bearing because the paper's central contribution is ``precise editing'' of dynamic avatars. The authors should provide the exact optimization objective and the backpropagation path from edited images to splat parameters.
  3. [§5.3, Table 2] The edit-quality numbers are uninterpretable as reported. The metric ``Average Spacial Attribute'' is not defined, and no protocol is given: number of subjects, number and content of prompts, number of raters, definition of ``success,'' or confidence intervals. The headline claim of 67.5% versus 36.4% therefore has no documented basis. Please specify the exact metric, the evaluation setup, and provide per-prompt or per-subject breakdowns so the result can be reproduced and compared with baselines.
  4. [§4.4, Eqs. (14)–(15)] The ``specialized GAN algorithm'' is presented only as two generic adversarial losses. There is no discriminator architecture, no description of how D and G are trained alternately, no loss weights or training schedule, and no discussion of how the GAN interacts with the mapping network and the diffusion-based editing process. Since the paper attributes its style-editing quality and temporal consistency to this component, the reported improvements cannot be reproduced or assessed without these details.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§5.1] The terms ``SLM'' and ``Instruct-Pix2Pix metric'' are used without definition; please explain what SLM stands for and how the text-image direction similarity is computed.
  2. [§4.4, Eq. (12)] The tracking loss uses L_perceptron(l, bl), but the symbols l and bl are not defined before the equation.
  3. [§4.4, Eq. (11) context] The text says the λ values ``have been tested to be effective during ablation study in our work,'' but the paper contains no ablation study; either add the ablation or remove the claim.
  4. [Table 2 and Figure 3 caption] There are typos that should be corrected: ``Spacial'' should be ``Spatial,'' and ``ultilize'' in the Figure 3 caption should be ``utilize.'
  5. [Figure 7 captions] The subcaptions in Figure 7 are labeled (a)–(e) but the main text references Figure 8 and Figure 9 in a confusing order; please align the caption labels with the in-text references.
  6. [Section 3.2] Section 3.2 is a generic review of prompt-based diffusion editing and is not connected to the actual implementation of the method; either remove it or explicitly state how the described components are instantiated in DynamicAvatars.
  7. [Eq. (17)] The weights λ1, λ2, λ3 in L_edit are not reported; please provide the values used in the experiments.
  8. [References] The reference list contains minor formatting issues, such as ``[42]'' being cited as ``[42]'' while some entries lack venue information; please standardize the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction and editing claims rest on external components and standard losses, not on self-referential definitions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline results from a circular chain. Reconstruction (Section 4.1, Eqs. 11-16) optimizes L2 and LPIPS photometric losses against observed video frames and a tracking loss against FLAME mesh constraints, and is evaluated with external metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS in Table 1). The editing stage (Sections 4.2-4.3, Eq. 17) combines external pre-trained models (DALL-E, GPT-4) with an adversarial loss; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. The mapping net is trained on masks from the same NeRSemble dataset, but it is a learned component used to propagate edit regions, not a quantity defined in terms of the evaluation target; even if its generalization is untested, that is an empirical gap, not a circular reduction. The paper itself flags open aspects, such as the t0/t1 semantic mismatch in Section 4.2 and unoptimized densification timing in Section 4.4, as limitations. Table 2's 'success' metric is under-defined and the mapping-net architecture and loss are unspecified; these are reproducibility and validity concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation appears: GaussianAvatars, SLD, InstructPix2Pix, and GenN2N are external prior works. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the relevant sense; weaknesses are omissions, not circular reductions.

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

The method rests on borrowed priors: FLAME, 3D Gaussian Splatting, diffusion models, LLMs, and GANs, plus an underspecified mapping network. Most free parameters are loss weights and training choices that lack systematic justification.

free parameters (4)
  • λ in Lrgb = 0.9 (modeling), 0.7 (editing)
    Chosen by hand; the paper mentions an ablation but does not show it.
  • λ1, λ2, λ3 in Ledit = not reported
    Introduced as a weighted sum without stating values or how they were chosen.
  • learning rate schedule = 1e-3 to 1e-5
    Standard decay chosen by hand, not central to the claim.
  • densification interval = 2048 iterations
    Fixed by hand; the paper admits the optimal timing was not investigated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FLAME model parameters capture facial shape and expression
    The reconstruction stage binds Gaussians to the FLAME mesh, so the whole method depends on FLAME's representational power (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Pre-trained DALL-E and GPT-4 perform reliably as off-the-shelf components
    The editing stage relies on GPT-4 for prompt rewriting and DALL-E for image generation, but the paper does not discuss failure cases or non-determinism (Section 4.3, Figure 4).
  • ad hoc to paper The mapping network learns to transfer masks across time and pose
    A core new module, but its architecture, loss, and training are unspecified (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption NeRSemble dataset is representative and free of bias for evaluation
    All experiments are on this single dataset; no cross-dataset validation is performed (Section 5.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DynamicAvatars: Accurate Dynamic Facial Avatars Reconstruction and Precise Editing with Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4AL3FIV

@misc{pith2026241115732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DynamicAvatars: Accurate Dynamic Facial Avatars Reconstruction and Precise Editing with Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4AL3FIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15732}
}
read the original abstract

Generating and editing dynamic 3D head avatars are crucial tasks in virtual reality and film production. However, existing methods often suffer from facial distortions, inaccurate head movements, and limited fine-grained editing capabilities. To address these challenges, we present DynamicAvatars, a dynamic model that generates photorealistic, moving 3D head avatars from video clips and parameters associated with facial positions and expressions. Our approach enables precise editing through a novel prompt-based editing model, which integrates user-provided prompts with guiding parameters derived from large language models (LLMs). To achieve this, we propose a dual-tracking framework based on Gaussian Splatting and introduce a prompt preprocessing module to enhance editing stability. By incorporating a specialized GAN algorithm and connecting it to our control module, which generates precise guiding parameters from LLMs, we successfully address the limitations of existing methods. Additionally, we develop a dynamic editing strategy that selectively utilizes specific training datasets to improve the efficiency and adaptability of the model for dynamic editing tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration results of our method. DynamicAvatars is a powerful method which has the ability to render photorealistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of our method. Our pipeline is divided into two main stages: the modeling stage and the editing stage. In modeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pipeline of the Modeling Stage In this stage, we utilize a dual tracking method to maintain the relative positions of Gaussian splats, facilitating the editing process in the subsequent stage. For a given set of video clips {Ii} and the corresponding FLAME parameter set {Fi}, we employ a Facial Component Identifier (FCI) to identify components within the face images. Semantic masks are then used to label the Gaussia… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Details of the First Editing Stage For the image I t0 p0 at the baseline time point t0 and baseline camera pose p0, the goal is to edit the selected masked area. To achieve this, we first warp the mask Mt0 p0 to Mti pj using a mapping network. This step identifies Gaus…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Space of our mapping net. It takes target timestep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Details of the Second Editing Stage In this stage, the focus shifts to prompt manipulation and fine-grained editing. The process begins with taking the initial prompt as input. An LLM (Large Language Model) is utilized to refine the prompt into precise instructions whi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of our expression editing experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Demonstration of our style editing experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt: Make the man’s left ear wear an earring. Demonstration of our accessories editing experiments. [8] Ziyu Chen, Jiawei Yang, Jiahui Huang, Riccardo de Lutio, Janick Martinez Esturo, Boris Ivanovic, Or Litany, Zan Go￾jcic, Sanja Fidler, Marco Pavone, Li Song, and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multidiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation, 2023

    Omer Bar-Tal, Lior Yariv, Yaron Lipman, and Tali Dekel. Multidiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation, 2023. 5

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields. ICCV, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09800, 2022. 3

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Light- ning NeRF: Efficient hybrid scene representation for au- tonomous driving

    Junyi Cao, Zhichao Li, Naiyan Wang, and Chao Ma. Light- ning NeRF: Efficient hybrid scene representation for au- tonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05907, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    3dgs-det: Em- power 3d gaussian splatting with boundary guidance and box-focused sampling for 3d object detection, 2024

    Yang Cao, Yuanliang Ju, and Dan Xu. 3dgs-det: Em- power 3d gaussian splatting with boundary guidance and box-focused sampling for 3d object detection, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chan, Connor Z

    Eric R. Chan, Connor Z. Lin, Matthew A. Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Efficient geometry-aware 3D generative adversarial networks. In arXiv, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Gaussianeditor: Swift and controllable 3d editing with gaussian splatting, 2023

    Yiwen Chen, Zilong Chen, Chi Zhang, Feng Wang, Xiaofeng Yang, Yikai Wang, Zhongang Cai, Lei Yang, Huaping Liu, and Guosheng Lin. Gaussianeditor: Swift and controllable 3d editing with gaussian splatting, 2023. 2, 5 (a) (b) Figure 7. Demonstration of our expression editing experiments. (a) Expression Editing with original appearance. (b) Prompt: Turn the m...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Omnire: Omni urban scene reconstruction

    Ziyu Chen, Jiawei Yang, Jiahui Huang, Riccardo de Lutio, Janick Martinez Esturo, Boris Ivanovic, Or Litany, Zan Go- jcic, Sanja Fidler, Marco Pavone, Li Song, and Yue Wang. Omnire: Omni urban scene reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16760, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Dynamic neural radiance fields for monocular 4d facial avatar reconstruction, 2020

    Guy Gafni, Justus Thies, Michael Zollh ¨ofer, and Matthias Nießner. Dynamic neural radiance fields for monocular 4d facial avatar reconstruction, 2020. 3

    2020

  2. [10]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2672–2680,

  3. [11]

    Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Jonathan T

    Peter Hedman, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Jonathan T. Barron, and Paul Debevec. Baking neural ra- diance fields for real-time view synthesis. ICCV, 2021. 2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey, 2024

    Yi Huang, Jiancheng Huang, Yifan Liu, Mingfu Yan, Jiaxi Lv, Jianzhuang Liu, Wei Xiong, He Zhang, Shifeng Chen, and Liangliang Cao. Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey, 2024. 3

    2024

  6. [14]

    Robust dual gaussian splatting for immersive human-centric volu- metric videos, 2024

    Yuheng Jiang, Zhehao Shen, Yu Hong, Chengcheng Guo, Yize Wu, Yingliang Zhang, Jingyi Yu, and Lan Xu. Robust dual gaussian splatting for immersive human-centric volu- metric videos, 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [15]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 3

    2019

  8. [16]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. InCon- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2023 ,

    2023

  9. [17]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4), 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  10. [18]

    Tianye Li, Timo Bolkart, Michael. J. Black, Hao Li, and Javier Romero. Learning a model of facial shape and ex- pression from 4D scans. ACM Transactions on Graphics, (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 36(6):194:1–194:17, 2017. 4

    2017

  11. [19]

    Llm- grounded diffusion: Enhancing prompt understanding of text-to-image diffusion models with large language models

    Long Lian, Boyi Li, Adam Yala, and Trevor Darrell. Llm- grounded diffusion: Enhancing prompt understanding of text-to-image diffusion models with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13655, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Deep 3d mask volume for view synthesis of dynamic scenes

    Kai-En Lin, Lei Xiao, Feng Liu, Guowei Yang, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Deep 3d mask volume for view synthesis of dynamic scenes. In ICCV, 2021. 4

    2021

  13. [21]

    Gva: Reconstructing vivid 3d gaussian avatars from monocular videos

    Xinqi Liu, Chenming Wu, Jialun Liu, Xing Liu, Chen Zhao, Haocheng Feng, Errui Ding, and Jingdong Wang. Gva: Reconstructing vivid 3d gaussian avatars from monocular videos. Arxiv, 2024. 3

    2024

  14. [22]

    Genn2n: Generative nerf2nerf translation

    Xiangyue Liu, Han Xue, Kunming Luo, Ping Tan, and Li Yi. Genn2n: Generative nerf2nerf translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5105–5114, 2024. 3

    2024

  15. [23]

    Gaussianhair: Hair modeling and rendering with light-aware gaussians

    Haimin Luo, Min Ouyang, Zijun Zhao, Suyi Jiang, Longwen Zhang, Qixuan Zhang, Wei Yang, Lan Xu, and Jingyi Yu. Gaussianhair: Hair modeling and rendering with light-aware gaussians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10483, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Jonathan T. Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duck- worth. NeRF in the Wild: Neural Radiance Fields for Un- constrained Photo Collections. In CVPR, 2021. 2

    2021

  17. [25]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthe- sis. Commun. ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Large language models: A survey, 2024

    Shervin Minaee, Tomas Mikolov, Narjes Nikzad, Meysam Chenaghlu, Richard Socher, Xavier Amatriain, and Jianfeng Gao. Large language models: A survey, 2024. 1

    2024

  19. [27]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding. ACM Trans. Graph. , 41(4):102:1– 102:15, 2022. 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    An introduction to convolu- tional neural networks, 2015

    Keiron O’Shea and Ryan Nash. An introduction to convolu- tional neural networks, 2015. 3

    2015

  21. [29]

    Diffusion handles: Enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting activations to 3d, 2023

    Karran Pandey, Paul Guerrero, Matheus Gadelha, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, Karan Singh, and Niloy Mitra. Diffusion handles: Enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting activations to 3d, 2023. 5

    2023

  22. [30]

    D-NeRF: Neural Radiance Fields for Dynamic Scenes

    Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. D-NeRF: Neural Radiance Fields for Dynamic Scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020. 2

    2020

  23. [31]

    Gaus- sianavatars: Photorealistic head avatars with rigged 3d gaus- sians

    Shenhan Qian, Tobias Kirschstein, Liam Schoneveld, Davide Davoli, Simon Giebenhain, and Matthias Nießner. Gaus- sianavatars: Photorealistic head avatars with rigged 3d gaus- sians. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2...

  24. [32]

    Rig3dgs: Creating controllable portraits from ca- sual monocular videos, 2024

    Alfredo Rivero, ShahRukh Athar, Zhixin Shu, and Dimitris Samaras. Rig3dgs: Creating controllable portraits from ca- sual monocular videos, 2024. 2

    2024

  25. [33]

    SplattingAvatar: Realistic Real-Time Human Avatars with Mesh-Embedded Gaussian Splatting

    Zhijing Shao, Zhaolong Wang, Zhuang Li, Duotun Wang, Xiangru Lin, Yu Zhang, Mingming Fan, and Zeyu Wang. SplattingAvatar: Realistic Real-Time Human Avatars with Mesh-Embedded Gaussian Splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Diffusion-gan: Training gans with diffusion, 2023

    Zhendong Wang, Huangjie Zheng, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Mingyuan Zhou. Diffusion-gan: Training gans with diffusion, 2023. 3

    2023

  27. [35]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene render- ing

    Guanjun Wu, Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wei Wei, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene render- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Self-correcting llm-controlled diffusion models

    Tsung-Han Wu, Long Lian, Joseph E Gonzalez, Boyi Li, and Trevor Darrell. Self-correcting llm-controlled diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16090, 2023. 3, 5

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els

    Binxin Yang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13227, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els

    Binxin Yang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18381–...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Dylin: Making light field networks dy- namic

    Heng Yu, Joel Julin, Zoltan A Milacski, Koichiro Niinuma, and Laszlo A Jeni. Dylin: Making light field networks dy- namic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14243, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splat- ting

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splat- ting. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2024. 2

    2024

  33. [41]

    Psavatar: A point-based shape model for real- time head avatar animation with 3d gaussian splatting, 2024

    Zhongyuan Zhao, Zhenyu Bao, Qing Li, Guoping Qiu, and Kanglin Liu. Psavatar: A point-based shape model for real- time head avatar animation with 3d gaussian splatting, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    Black, and Otmar Hilliges

    Yufeng Zheng, Wang Yifan, Gordon Wetzstein, Michael J. Black, and Otmar Hilliges. Pointavatar: Deformable point- based head avatars from videos, 2023. 8

    2023

  35. [43]

    Headstudio: Text to animatable head avatars with 3d gaussian splatting

    Zhenglin Zhou, Fan Ma, Hehe Fan, Zongxin Yang, and Yi Yang. Headstudio: Text to animatable head avatars with 3d gaussian splatting. In ECCV, 2024. 3

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.