We present N4MC, the first 4D neural compression framework to efficiently compress time-varying mesh sequences by exploiting their temporal redundancy. Unlike prior neural mesh compression methods that treat each mesh frame independently, N4MC takes inspiration from inter-frame compression in 2D video codecs, and learns motion compensation in long mesh sequences. Specifically, N4MC converts consecutive irregular mesh frames into regular 4D tensors to provide a uniform and compact representation. These tensors are then condensed using an auto-decoder, which captures both spatial and temporal correlations for redundancy removal. To enhance temporal coherence, we introduce a transformer-based interpolation model that predicts intermediate mesh frames conditioned on latent embeddings derived from tracked volume centers, eliminating motion ambiguities. Extensive evaluations show that N4MC outperforms state-of-the-art in rate-distortion performance, while enabling real-time decoding of 4D mesh sequences. The implementation of our method is available at: https://github.com/frozzzen3/N4MC.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: N4MC overview. N4MC enables neural 4D mesh compression with 4 modules: (1) A TSDF-Def generation module (top left); (2) A trained auto-encoder and auto-decoder pair to condense TSDF-Def tensors (bottom left); (3) A volume tracking module and a latent code mapping network to generate interpolation priors (top right); (4) A light-weight transformer model for 3D interpolation (bottom right).
Figure 3: Cross-section illustration of N4MC’s volume tracking on input 4D mesh frames to obtain sets of volume centers (orange), and conversion of keyframe meshes (gray) into TSDF-Def tensors. For better visualization, we show the (4×8×8) intermediate cross-sections of the TSDF tensors. N4MC leverages the tracked volume centers to extract priors for interpolation, to guide the interpolation for regions such as the hands and basketball.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of our N4MC with baselines at a bitrate around 4 Mbps. For image-based SSIM and PSNR evaluation, lighting effects are disabled, and vertex normals are converted to RGB colors before rendering. The ”Dancer” and ”Basketball player” sequences appear green, while ”Mitch” and ”Thomas” show pink due to their different orientations. We show a front-facing perspective on people here for all datasets for fair evaluation. To save space, we show full meshes for ”Dancer” dataset and only ground truth with zoomed-in regions for ”Basketball player”, ”Mitch”, and ”Thomas”. N4MC outperforms all the baselines with very high quality.
Dancer
Basketball Player
Mitch
Thomas
Method
Time [ms] ↓
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
Draco [ 16 ]
2.22
54.308
0.913
24.08
3.986
57.577
0.904
23.755
4.046
63.696
0.948
27.1
4.108
63.677
0.952
28.07
4.161
KLT [ 56 ]
24.40
58.166
0.9490
28.027
4.064
58.511
0.9431
27.792
4.036
62.469
0.9450
28.344
4.091
62.026
0.9518
29.494
3.870
TVMC [ 8 ]
11.29
65.527
0.9388
30.2838
4.237
61.840
0.8795
25.889
4.438
72.807
0.9639
34.37
4.664
71.064
0.9639
34.328
4.195
NeCGS [ 46 ]
37.39
62.065
0.9458
26.405
3.480
61.228
0.9540
29.764
3.656
69.256
0.9647
32.337
4.298
67.157
0.9670
33.051
3.520
N4MC (Ours)
38.63
67.276
0.9712
33.567
4.514
66.107
0.9671
33.188
4.311
73.129
0.9779
37.274
4.430
72.759
0.9791
37.811
4.269
Table 1: Quantitative comparison with N4MC and baselines in terms of decoding time, D2-PSNR, image-based SSIM, and PSNR with a similar bitrate around 4 Mbps. The best results are shown in orange, and the second-best in yellow. Corresponding qualitative (visual) comparisons are shown in Fig. 4 .
Figure 5: Objective rate–distortion (RD) performance comparison of image-based SSIM versus bitrate on MPEG sequences. To get the target bitrates, for TVMC [ 8 ] and Draco [ 16 ] , the quantization parameter qp is varied from 4 to 14. For NeCGS [ 46 ] and our N4MC, TSDF-Def resolutions of 64, 128, and 256 are used. For KLT [ 56 ] , 16, 32, and 128 basis vectors are employed.
Resolution ( k )
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
Time [ms] ↓
64
54.986
0.9296
24.721
2.024
4.097
128
59.633
0.9511
29.278
2.308
7.371
256
66.107
0.9671
33.188
4.311
38.537
Table 2: Ablation study at different resolutions, evaluated in terms of D2-PNSR, image-based SSIM, PSNR, and decoding time.
n
N
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
Time [ms] ↓
5
100
68.225
0.9622
31.847
2.442
6.935
10
100
67.632
0.9610
31.494
2.071
6.417
15
100
67.040
0.9597
31.129
1.968
6.227
5
200
67.635
0.9608
31.480
2.283
7.112
5
300
64.484
0.9517
29.521
1.842
6.868
Table 3: Ablation on group size and total frame number .
Figure 6: Qualitative comparisons of N4MC with different TSDF-Def resolutions of 64, 128, and 256.
Method
Time [ms] ↓
D2-PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
Bitrate
Draco [ 16 ]
9.10
57.597
0.899
27.437
14.487
KLT [ 56 ]
24.7
61.450
0.9424
30.479
10.737
TVMC [ 8 ]
36.457
60.385
0.8820
27.366
9.847
NeCGS [ 46 ]
6.89
61.739
0.9440
30.555
4.931
N4MC (Ours)
7.33
61.121
0.9399
29.898
2.469
Table 4: Quantitative comparison on the Mixed dataset at similar quality levels to illustrate bitrate differences.
Meta Quest 3
Pixel 9
Xiaomi 12S Pro
Overall time [ms]
346.02
144.34
156.16
Model Inference [ms]
235.29
96.28
100.95
Marching Cubes [ms]
110.73
48.06
55.21
Table 5: Decoding time comparison across mobile devices.
Figure 7: Objective rate-distortion (RD) performance comparison of geometry-based D2-PSNR versus bitrate on four 4D mesh sequences: ”Dancer”, ”Basketball player”, ”Mitch”, and ”Thomas”. To get the target bitrates, we use the same setting as in Fig. 5 .
Figure 8: Objective rate-distortion (RD) performance comparison of image-based PSNR versus bitrate on four 4D mesh sequences: ”Dancer”, ”Basketball player”, ”Mitch”, and ”Thomas”. To get the target bitrates, we use the same setting as in Fig. 5 .
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of our N4MC with baselines on ”Mixed” dataset.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of our N4MC with baselines on a real captured dataset.
Method
dpm(×10−4)↓
dnormal↓
CR ↑
NPM [ 11 ]
4.12
7.19 °
61.39
N4MC (ours)
10.42
9.26 °
89.56
Table 6: Comparisons of N4MC and Neural Progressive Meshes [ 11 ] on Thingi10K. dpm represents the mean point-to-mesh distance. dnormal represents the average normal error.
Figure 11: Ablation on volume center latent mapping. Without latent mapping, N4MC could fail.
Figure 12: Complete qualitative comparison of our N4MC with baselines at a bitrate around 4 Mbps.
Figure 13: Qualitative results of our N4MC on synthetic dataset Thingi10K [ 69 ] .
4D mesh generation has recently emerged as a powerful paradigm for recovering dynamic 3D structure from videos, but existing methods remain slow, computationally expensive, and difficult to scale to longer sequences. We introduce a training-free approach that accelerates 4D mesh generation while improving temporal correspondence quality. Our key observation is that temporal correspondences emerge inside a 4D backbone long before its generated meshes become visually accurate. We exploit this with a general framework we call Spatio-Temporal Attention Chain which propagates information across space and time. Starting from vertices on an anchor mesh, the chain maps vertices to latent tokens. It then follows temporal correspondences in latent space, and recovers frame-specific vertices through latent-to-vertex attention. This design avoids expensive explicit matching while preserving anchor mesh details and thereby improving dynamic mesh geometry and temporal consistency. Compared to state-of-the-art, our method generates a 4D mesh in 9 seconds, achieving a 13× speedup while producing higher-quality results. Moreover, our approach scales to videos up to 16× longer without degrading mesh quality. Beyond generation, the improved correspondences enable competitive zero-shot performance on two downstream tasks: 2D object tracking and 4D tracking. We further show that our framework enables reliable camera estimation, a capability not supported by prior 4D mesh generation methods.
Dvir Samuel, Yuval Atzmon, Gal Chechik +1
NVIDIA Research, Tel-Aviv, Israel · Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
4D dynamics (3D geometry evolving over time) is a fundamental representation of the physical world and plays a crucial role in world modeling (e.g., animation and games). Owing to the scarcity of large-scale, long-horizon 4D mesh data with arbitrary shapes, early text-to-4D methods rely on distillation or test-time optimization from video diffusion priors, making inference prohibitively slow. Recent feed-forward generators greatly reduce inference cost but offer limited spatiotemporal controllability, and short-horizon generation often leads to error accumulation in long-horizon sequences. We propose a novel feed-forward in-betweening framework for arbitrary 4D meshes with keyframe conditioning. Building on universal mesh-animation latents, we introduce a frame-wise mesh VAE that encodes each frame into topology-agnostic latent tokens anchored by a reference mesh for keyframe conditioning. We further introduce a keyframe-conditioned rectified flow model with an MMDiT backbone that synthesizes non-keyframe frames conditioned on sparse keyframes. Experiments show strong performance and improved controllability on both DyMesh16 and DyMesh32 benchmarks.
Hiroki Nishizawa, Hubert P. H. Shum, Yoshihiro Fukuhara +2
Current video-to-4D methods struggle with complex topology changes, transparent materials, thin structures, and inner surfaces. We present Helix4D, a dynamic mesh generation framework by inheriting the expressive representation of Trellis2, adapting it from image-to-3D to video-conditioned 4D generation. Our design arises from two key questions: (a) how to enable Trellis2's frame-local attention to share information across frames while preserving its pretrained quality on rare cases such as transparent objects and inner surfaces, and (b) how to inject temporal information into a purely 3D positional encoding without breaking pretrained capabilities. We address (a) with a sliding-window cross-frame attention and anchor on the first frame. The first frame is generated by the base Trellis2 model and injected into our model, letting it inherit Trellis2's quality in rare cases through cross-frame attention. We address (b) with a 4D temporal encoding that repurposes redundant low-frequency spatial RoPE bands for time, extending the encoding from 3D with no additional parameters. Extensive experiments show the effectiveness of Helix4D for high-quality dynamic mesh generation on ActionBench and our own challenging complex dynamics set.