WACV 2027

Structure from Collision via Hypothesis-Space Reasoning

Takuhiro Kaneko

NTT, Inc.

TL;DR: We reformulate Structure from Collision as hypothesis-space reasoning: globally evaluate explicit structural hypotheses with forward-only physical simulation, then refine the selected structure as a Lagrangian particle system.

Abstract

Knowledge of the hidden interior structure of an object, including the presence and location of cavities, is essential for predictive simulation, robotic manipulation, and nondestructive inspection. However, such cavities leave no direct signature on the static visible surface, making collision-induced deformation one of the few cues used to infer their presence. Structure from Collision (SfC) addresses this problem by recovering the hidden interior structure of an object from multiview observations of a collision event. SfC is challenging for two reasons: hidden cavities are only indirectly observable through surface motion, and voids correspond to the absence of material, making direct optimization using standard density representations difficult. The density-based SfC baseline inherits both difficulties. Surface-matching gradients do not directly indicate the cavity location, while density gradients can be weak or uninformative inside or near void regions. Therefore, we reformulate SfC as hypothesis-space reasoning, representing hidden cavities as explicit structural hypotheses whose variables encode available structural assumptions rather than relying on implicit density updates. A global stage performs gradient-free optimization over this hypothesis space using forward-only material point method (MPM) simulation. A local stage then refines the selected hypothesis as a Lagrangian particle system through gradient-based optimization using differentiable MPM simulation. On the SfC benchmark, our method improves hidden-structure reconstruction and future prediction over the density-based SfC baseline. Interior-topology stress tests and robustness analyses characterize its scope and limitations.

Results

We present qualitative comparisons and stage-wise ablations on the SfC benchmark, together with controlled interior-topology stress tests. Each video contains 28 frames: the first 14 frames are observed frames used for optimization, and the remaining 14 frames show future prediction.

SfC benchmark

We evaluate reconstruction performance on the standard SfC benchmark and examine the contributions of the global and local stages.

Each SfC benchmark example contains two videos:

  • (i) Main comparison shows (a) Observation, (b) Ground truth, (c) SfC-NeRF, and (d) Ours.
  • (ii) Stage-wise ablation shows (a) Observation, (b) Ground truth, (c) Instantiation only, (d) +Global opt., and (e) +Global opt. + Local refine (Full).

Cavity position variation

Figs. 4, 7

Diamond Fig. 4

(i) Main comparison
(ii) Stage-wise ablation

Bicone Fig. 7(I)

(i) Main comparison
(ii) Stage-wise ablation

Sphere Fig. 7(II)

(i) Main comparison
(ii) Stage-wise ablation

Cavity size variation

Fig. 8

Cube Fig. 8(I)

(i) Main comparison
(ii) Stage-wise ablation

Cylinder Fig. 8(II)

(i) Main comparison
(ii) Stage-wise ablation

Interior-topology stress tests

We use controlled hypothesis spaces to stress-test reconstruction under more complex interior topologies and examine how different structural assumptions affect reconstruction. These settings are not intended as evidence of arbitrary topology discovery.

Each video shows (a) Observation, (b) Ground truth, (c) SfC-NeRF (Size), (d) Ours (Size), (e) Ours (Cand. w/ center), and (f) Ours (Template w/ center). "Size" denotes the known-size setting, "Cand. w/ center" uses a set of candidate templates and a known center, and "Template w/ center" uses a known template and center.

Symmetric: Snowman Fig. 9

Asymmetric: Pacman Fig. 10

Complex: Split sphere Fig. 11

Citation

@inproceedings{kaneko2027sfchypothesis,
  title     = {Structure from Collision via Hypothesis-Space Reasoning},
  author    = {Kaneko, Takuhiro},
  booktitle = {WACV},
  year      = {2027}
}