Invertible Neural Skinning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building animatable and editable models of clothed humans from raw 3D scans and poses is a challenging problem. Existing reposing methods suffer from the limited expressiveness of Linear Blend Skinning (LBS), require costly mesh extraction to generate each new pose, and typically do not preserve surface correspondences across different poses. In this work, we introduce Invertible Neural Skinning (INS) to address these shortcomings. To maintain correspondences, we propose a Pose-conditioned Invertible Network (PIN) architecture, which extends the LBS process by learning additional pose-varying deformations. Next, we combine PIN with a differentiable LBS module to build an expressive and end-to-end Invertible Neural Skinning (INS) pipeline. We demonstrate the strong performance of our method by outperforming the state-of-the-art reposing techniques on clothed humans and preserving surface correspondences, while being an order of magnitude faster. We also perform an ablation study, which shows the usefulness of our pose-conditioning formulation, and our qualitative results display that INS can rectify artefacts introduced by LBS well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".