Summary
This paper presents a generalizable single-view 3D human reconstruction system, which uses 3D Gaussians as 3D representations. Although the 3D Gaussian representation is promising due to its rendering speed, naively adapting 3D Gaussians in 3D human reconstruction often produces errored reconstructions. To resolve this issue, this paper introduces generate-then-refine pipeline that 1) reconstructs 3D Gaussians, 2) refines SMPL-X & back-view, and 3) reruns the 3D Gaussian reconstruction. The experiments demonstrate that it achieves state-of-the-art in novel-view synthesis and 3D reconstruction compared to existing methods.
Strengths
In recent years, 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) has shown impressive results in 3D vision fields. Despite the promising results of 3DGS, the exploration of adapting 3D Gaussians for single-view 3D human reconstruction is still lacking. This paper points out the challenges of adapting 3D Gaussians for 3D human reconstruction. I think solving the proposed generate-then-refine pipeline could be one of the good research directions in 3D human reconstruction. The proposed approach sounds plausible, and can be plugged into most reconstruction algorithms. The paper is written in an easy-to-understand manner.
Weaknesses
I have several concern points below.
1) About SMPL-X refinement strategy
It is unclear why the proposed SMPL-X refinement pipeline actually helps. As described in Section 3.3.2, the SMPL-X is optimized by two-type losses: normal loss and rendering loss. The optimization targets of two losses can be inaccurate: normal GT is from normal estimator, rendering T is from coarse Gaussians. Furthermore, as the coarse Gaussians are processed based on the initial SMPL-X (Figure 2), it seems that coarse Gaussians will not deviate much from the initial SMPL-X. It is questionable whether the proposed SMPL-X improvements always guarantee improved reconstruction quality. For example, if using a distinguished SMPL-X estimator, the refinement pipeline can lead to performance degradation.
2) Validation of SMPL-X refinement
Although SMPL-X refinement is claimed to be an important contribution, there is no detailed experiment on it. Although Table 4 indirectly demonstrates this, more explicit experiments on SMPL-X improvements (measuring MPJPE for before refine. / after refine.) are required. Additionally, to strengthen the effect of SMPL-X refinement, experiments on diverse SMPL-X initial estimator [1,2,3] are also needed.
3) Description about ControlNet in back-view refinement
The paper does not specified how ControlNet in back-view refinement is trained. Back-view refinement is also a major contribution of this paper, so it is important to clarify the training procedure for the reproducibility. I would recommend describing ControlNet's architecture, learning strategy, and training dataset. Specifically, I curious about how to augment coarse image (ControlNet condition) for the training. Furthermore, I also recommend that conducting a quantitative comparison with SiTH's back-view estimation (Figure 4) to justify the proposed refinement module.
4) Writing
a. In Section 3.3.2, it is unclear whether SMPL-X only optimizes parameters or whether SMPL-X and HGM are jointly optimized.
b. In L123, it is an overclaim that using multi-view images is main strength over existing methods. This algorithm setup using 12 rendered multi-view images (L350) is not significantly different from that using a 3D scan. Fundamentally, this algorithm also used 3D scans (L349), and did not show results when trained with 12 multi-view images for the existing methods.
[1] Moon et al., Accurate 3D Hand Pose Estimation for Whole-Body 3D Human Mesh Estimation, CVPRW 2022.
[2] Lin et al., One-stage 3d whole-body mesh recovery with component aware transformer, CVPR 2023.
[3] Zhang et al., PyMAF-X: Towards well-aligned full-body model regression from monocular images., IEEE 2023.
In conclusion, the proposed approach looks plausible and well-designed, but I am concerned that the proposed generate-then-refine strategy is actually effective. I think it could be a good academic paper if it includes a more clear explanation about SMPL-X refinement (1, 2) and back-view refinement (3), which are the core of the generate-then-refine strategy.
Questions
1) According to the paper, it looks like back-view refinement is quite effective. If back-view refinement improves the final Gaussians, can the improved Gaussian be a good source for back-view refinement? In other words, I wonder if performance can continue to improve if processes 2) and 3) in Figure 2 are performed cyclically. This experiment would be a good way to demonstrate how much the paper's approach improves reconstruction performance.