MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417124644 · doi:10.1145/3757377.3763904

In-2-4D: Inbetweening from Two Single-View Images to 4D Generation

2025· article· W4417124644 on OpenAlexaff
Sauradip Nag, Daniel Cohen‐Or, Hao Zhang, Ali Mahdavi‐Amiri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Motion fieldMotion interpolationMotion (physics)Motion captureLeverage (statistics)Merge (version control)Motion estimationAffine transformation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We pose a new problem, In-2-4D, for generative 4D (i.e., 3D + motion) inbetweening to interpolate two single-view images. In contrast to video/4D generation from only text or a single image, our interpolative task can leverage more precise motion control to better constrain the generation. Given two monocular RGB images representing the start and end states of an object in motion, our goal is to generate and reconstruct the motion in 4D, without making assumptions on the object category, motion type, length, or complexity. To handle such arbitrary and diverse motions, we utilize a foundational video interpolation model for motion prediction. However, large frame-to-frame motion gaps can lead to ambiguous interpretations. To this end, we employ a hierarchical approach to identify keyframes that are visually close to the input states while exhibiting significant motions, then generate smooth fragments between them. For each fragment, we construct a 3D representation of the keyframe using Gaussian Splatting (3DGS). The temporal frames within the fragment guide the motion, enabling their transformation into dynamic 3DGS through a deformation field. To improve temporal consistency and refine the 3D motion, we expand the self-attention of multi-view diffusion across timesteps and apply rigid transformation regularization. Finally, we merge the independently generated 3D motion segments by interpolating boundary deformation fields and optimizing them to align with the guiding video, ensuring smooth and flicker-free transitions. Through extensive qualitative and quantitive experiments as well as a user study, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our method and design choices.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207