Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 40 references

NeRF Inpainting with Geometric Diffusion Prior and Balanced Score Distillation

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that NeRF inpainting improves when the diffusion prior is fine-tuned on paired RGB images and normal maps and when score distillation drops its unconditional noise term, yielding a balanced two-prompt gradient called…

desk verdict A solid, modest NeRF-inpainting paper whose appearance gains are credible but whose geometry claims rest on an undocumented normal-rendering step that a referee should push to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15551 v1 pith:SABWPGM3 submitted 2024-11-23 cs.CV

Menglin Zhang , Xin Luo , Yunwei Lan , Chang Liu , Rui Li , Kaidong Zhang , Ganlin Yang , Dong Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords NeRFinpaintingBalancedScoreDistillationgeometricpriornormalmapdiffusionmodelLoRAobjectremovalsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that NeRF inpainting fails when the 2D diffusion prior ignores geometry and when score distillation injects random noise. It proposes GB-NeRF, which fine-tunes a diffusion model with LoRA on paired RGB images and normal maps from DIODE, so the model learns to complete both appearance and surface orientation. It then replaces the distracting unconditional noise term in score distillation with Balanced Score Distillation (BSD), a two-term gradient that balances a positive prompt against a negative prompt. On the SPIn-NeRF and LLFF object-removal benchmarks, the authors report that GB-NeRF beats SPIn-NeRF and MVIP-NeRF on most perceptual and geometric metrics, though not on PSNR, which they argue is unreliable for inpainting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are Balanced Score Distillation (BSD) and the RGB-normal fine-tuning pipeline. BSD is the gradient $\delta = \omega_1 \epsilon_\phi(x_t; y, t) - \omega_2 \epsilon_\phi(x_t; y_{\mathrm{neg}}, t)$, where $\epsilon_\phi$ are noise predictions from the diffusion model conditioned on positive and negative text prompts and the unconditional term is dropped; the same form is applied to normal maps in the geometric loss. The fine-tuning stage trains the U-Net and text encoder with LoRA on DIODE RGB-normal pairs, using BLIP-generated captions prepended with modality identifiers ('RGB image' or 'normal map'), so the model retains its appearance prior while learning to complete structurally accurate normal maps.

What would settle it

Render a trained GB-NeRF's normal maps on held-out views and compute the FID between those rendered normals and DIODE normal maps; if the distance is large, the geometric prior is being applied out-of-distribution. Alternatively, during masked-region distillation, replace the rendered normal map with the ground-truth normal map: if D-FID does not improve further, the geometric gains come from RGB supervision rather than from the normal channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GB-NeRF's central claim is that a diffusion prior fine-tuned to generate normal maps together with RGB images, supervised by a Balanced Score Distillation loss, yields state-of-the-art NeRF inpainting in both appearance and geometry. The gradient used for masked regions is $\delta_{\mathrm{BSD}} = \omega_1 \epsilon_\phi(x_t; y, t) - \omega_2 \epsilon_\phi(x_t; y_{\mathrm{neg}}, t)$, applied to rendered RGB images and to rendered normal maps alike, with the unconditional noise-prediction term removed. Removing that term makes the supervision more deterministic in occluded areas, and combining this with LoRA fine-tuning on RGB-normal pairs improves perceptual quality and geometric consistency relative to baseline NeRF inpainting methods.

Load-bearing premise

The geometric gains rest on the assumption that a normal map rendered from the NeRF lies in the same distribution as the DIODE normal maps used to fine-tune the diffusion model, and the paper does not give the rendering formula or quantify the distribution shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BSD requires only two diffusion evaluations per optimization step instead of three, reducing computation and eliminating the unconditional-weight hyperparameter whose nonzero values cause blurry or artifact-laden inpaintings.
  • The fine-tuned diffusion model can complete normal maps as well as RGB images, so geometric supervision in masked regions no longer depends solely on the weak normal-map priors of a pretrained diffusion model.
  • The reported results show that on SPIn-NeRF and LLFF, GB-NeRF improves SSIM, FID, NIMA, BRISQUE, D-PSNR and D-FID over MVIP-NeRF and SPIn-NeRF variants, at the cost of slightly lower PSNR, which the paper attributes to the ill-posed nature of inpainting.
  • Ablation results indicate the two components are complementary: LoRA fine-tuning chiefly lowers D-FID, BSD chiefly improves perceptual metrics, and combining them yields the best overall balance.
  • Since BSD and the RGB-normal fine-tuning are formulated for any differentiable 3D generator, the same pipeline can be dropped into other NeRF-based scene-editing tasks without changing the loss structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: BSD is effectively a directional classifier-free guidance in prompt space, so the same positive-minus-negative gradient could be applied to video inpainting or 3D Gaussian splatting, where the negative prompt controls what content the model avoids hallucinating.
  • Editorial inference: the claimed geometric gains depend on rendered normal maps being in-distribution for the DIODE-fine-tuned model; a direct check would be to compute an FID score between rendered normal maps and DIODE normal maps on held-out scenes.
  • Editorial inference: because PSNR drops while perceptual metrics rise, the method is trading pixel-level fidelity for plausible structure; applications that need exact geometry, such as industrial or medical scan completion, may value the PSNR loss more than this paper does.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's ablation suggests that normal-map-only fine-tuning hurts performance while RGB-plus-normal fine-tuning helps, implying the geometry prior is only useful when appearance knowledge is preserved; a testable follow-up is to vary the LoRA rank to find the minimal capacity needed for the geometric prior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GB-NeRF, a NeRF inpainting method for removing objects from multi-view scenes. It fine-tunes a latent diffusion model with LoRA on DIODE RGB-normal pairs augmented with BLIP captions, so that the model learns both appearance and geometric priors. The authors also introduce Balanced Score Distillation (BSD), which removes the unconditional noise-prediction term from Classifier Score Distillation (CSD), leaving only positive- and negative-prompt terms. The method is evaluated on subsets of SPIn-NeRF and LLFF, comparing against SPIn-NeRF+LaMa, SPIn-NeRF+SDS, and MVIP-NeRF. The paper claims state-of-the-art appearance fidelity and geometric consistency, supported by quantitative gains in SSIM, FID, NIMA, BRISQUE, D-FID, and D-PSNR, plus qualitative visual comparisons.

Significance. If substantiated, the work is a worthwhile contribution: it demonstrates that LoRA-based fine-tuning on RGB-normal pairs can inject geometric priors into a pretrained diffusion model, and that a two-term score distillation reduces optimization variance and computational cost relative to SDS and CSD. The paper provides a public code link, ablates its two main components, and reports a broad set of metrics. However, the current evidence for the state-of-the-art claim is weakened by an underspecified geometric loss, a potential distribution shift in the normal-map input, and evaluation choices that limit the strength of the empirical conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.3, Eq. (10)] The normal map n used in the geometric BSD loss is never defined. The paper gives no rendering formula (e.g., normalized negative density gradient or depth-derived normals), no convention for camera-space versus world-space normals, no handling of empty or low-density regions, and no description of how the mask is applied to the rendered normal map. Without this, Eq. (10) is not implementable, and the reported geometric gains (D-PSNR, D-FID in Table 1) are not reproducible. Please specify the exact normal rendering procedure and the preprocessing steps used before the latent encoder.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 and Eq. (10)] The fine-tuned diffusion model is trained on DIODE normal maps, but at inference it receives NeRF-rendered normals from the masked region, where geometry is initially unconstrained. The resulting distribution (sensor-specific value ranges, invalid pixels, density noise, floating geometry) may be far outside the DIODE distribution, so the geometric prior could be imposing arbitrary smoothness rather than accurate geometry. Please provide evidence that the rendered-normal distribution overlaps the training distribution (e.g., histograms, FID between rendered and DIODE normals, or a synthetic experiment with known ground-truth geometry), and state how invalid normals are handled.
  3. [Sec. 5, Datasets] The paper selects 8 of the 10 SPIn-NeRF scenes and a 4-scene LLFF subset without explaining the selection criteria or the evaluation views used. Because the headline claim rests on Table 1 and Table 2, and several metric gaps are small (e.g., SSIM 0.4266 vs 0.4208, PSNR 19.489 vs 19.813), the lack of per-scene results, error bars, or significance tests makes it difficult to judge whether the improvements are consistent. Please report per-scene numbers, justify the subset, and add variance or significance information.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.1 and Table 2] BSD is designed by setting omega3=0 based on an ablation on the same SPIn-NeRF benchmark used for the final comparison, and the remaining weights (omega1=7.5, omega2=6.5, omega1=1.5, omega2=0.5, lambda1=0.1, lambda2=lambda3=0.0001, LoRA rank 32) are tuned on that same data. This makes the method's advantage less clearly a consequence of the principle rather than of benchmark-specific tuning. Please include sensitivity curves for the key hyperparameters and, if possible, validate on a held-out scene set or additional datasets.
  5. [Sec. 5.1, Baselines] The paper claims BSD outperforms CSD, but Table 1 does not include a CSD baseline under the same fine-tuned diffusion backbone; the only comparison is to MVIP-NeRF's SDS-based pipeline. A direct CSD ablation with the same LoRA weights would be needed to support the superiority claim over CSD.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The dataset name is spelled 'SPIN-NeRF' in the table caption while the text uses 'SPIn-NeRF'; please unify the spelling.
  2. [Fig. 3] The quantitative relationship between omega3 and the metrics is not given; only qualitative images are shown. Reporting quantitative values would strengthen the motivation for setting omega3=0.
  3. [Sec. 5, Metrics] The paper argues that PSNR is unreliable for inpainting evaluation, yet it still reports D-PSNR as a positive result. Please provide the same argument for why D-PSNR is reliable when it supports the paper's claims.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.3, Eq. (11)] The unmasked depth loss Lg_unma is included in the final loss, but the paper does not state whether ground-truth depth is available for both datasets; please clarify how Lg_unma is computed for scenes without depth.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: BSD is an empirically motivated simplification of CSD, evaluated against external baselines, and no load-bearing self-citation appears.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The central contribution, Balanced Score Distillation (BSD), is defined in Eq. 8 by removing the unconditional term from the CSD expression in Eq. 7; the paper explicitly frames this as an empirical simplification motivated by the ω3 ablation in Figure 3, not as a theorem-derived result. BSD is then compared against the external SDS and CSD baselines on the SPIn-NeRF and LLFF benchmarks. Hyperparameters such as ω1, ω2, and λ1–λ3 are set empirically, but there is no specific reduction showing that the reported improvements are forced by construction; this is standard hyperparameter selection, not a fitted quantity disguised as a prediction. The geometric-prior enhancement relies on the external DIODE dataset and the cited inpainting fine-tuning protocol [40], and no reference is authored by the present paper's authors, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The undefined normal-map rendering in Eq. 10 is a genuine specification gap and a distribution-shift risk for the diffusion prior, but it is not circular: the paper does not define the rendered normal in terms of the evaluated disparity metrics, nor does it claim to derive the normal rendering from the diffusion model's outputs. The limitations section honestly acknowledges tuning effort and residual shadow artifacts, which is consistent with an empirical system rather than a self-referential derivation. No circular step can be quoted and exhibited under the required standard, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several domain assumptions about the transfer of a fine-tuned diffusion prior and the validity of score distillation for NeRF geometry, plus a set of hand-tuned hyperparameters (omega and lambda weights, LoRA rank, timestep range). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • omega1_appearance = 7.5
    Positive-prompt weight in BSD appearance loss (Eq. 9); chosen empirically.
  • omega2_appearance = 6.5
    Negative-prompt weight in BSD appearance loss (Eq. 9); chosen empirically.
  • omega1_geometry = 1.5
    Positive-prompt weight in BSD geometry loss (Eq. 10); chosen empirically.
  • omega2_geometry = 0.5
    Negative-prompt weight in BSD geometry loss (Eq. 10); chosen empirically.
  • lambda1 = 0.1
    Weight for unmasked depth loss in Eq. 11; set empirically.
  • lambda2 = 0.0001
    Weight for masked appearance BSD loss in Eq. 11; set empirically.
  • lambda3 = 0.0001
    Weight for masked geometry BSD loss in Eq. 11; set empirically.
  • omega3 = 0
    Unconditional noise prediction weight in modified CSD (Eq. 7); set to zero based on ablation in Fig. 3, leading to BSD.
  • LoRA rank = 32
    Rank of LoRA adaptation in diffusion fine-tuning; chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A normal map rendered from a NeRF is a valid input to the latent diffusion model that was fine-tuned on DIODE normal maps.
    The geometric BSD loss Eq. 10 applies the diffusion model to a rendered normal map, but no compatibility guarantee or normal rendering formula is provided. Invoked in Sec. 4.2.3.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning on DIODE with BLIP captions and LoRA preserves Stable Diffusion's appearance prior while adding geometric priors that transfer to arbitrary NeRF scenes.
    The geometric enhancement depends on this transfer, which is only validated indirectly by the final metrics. Invoked in Sec. 4.1.
  • domain assumption The score distillation gradient from DreamFusion (Eq. 4) is a valid optimization signal for NeRF parameters.
    The paper builds on SDS and CSD without re-deriving the KL objective or gradient. Invoked in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption BLIP-generated captions provide accurate text conditioning for the fine-tuning data, and sharing captions between RGB images and normal maps is meaningful.
    Caption quality is not evaluated, yet these captions are the prompts used to teach the geometric prior. Invoked in Sec. 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeRF Inpainting with Geometric Diffusion Prior and Balanced Score Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SABWPGM3

@misc{pith2026241115551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeRF Inpainting with Geometric Diffusion Prior and Balanced Score Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SABWPGM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15551}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in NeRF inpainting have leveraged pretrained diffusion models to enhance performance. However, these methods often yield suboptimal results due to their ineffective utilization of 2D diffusion priors. The limitations manifest in two critical aspects: the inadequate capture of geometric information by pretrained diffusion models and the suboptimal guidance provided by existing Score Distillation Sampling (SDS) methods. To address these problems, we introduce GB-NeRF, a novel framework that enhances NeRF inpainting through improved utilization of 2D diffusion priors. Our approach incorporates two key innovations: a fine-tuning strategy that simultaneously learns appearance and geometric priors and a specialized normal distillation loss that integrates these geometric priors into NeRF inpainting. We propose a technique called Balanced Score Distillation (BSD) that surpasses existing methods such as Score Distillation (SDS) and the improved version, Conditional Score Distillation (CSD). BSD offers improved inpainting quality in appearance and geometric aspects. Extensive experiments show that our method provides superior appearance fidelity and geometric consistency compared to existing approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our GB-NeRF framework compared to MVIP-NeRF. Both approaches leverage appearance (A) and geometric (G) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Method overview. (Left) Diffusion fine-tuning: Our approach utilizes the DIODE dataset [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of tuning coefficient ω3 on NeRF inpainting. The incorporation of unconditional noise prediction introduces exces￾sive randomness, resulting in degraded inpainting quality. render an RGB image and a normal map from the NeRF scene. We employ our BSD losses to compute a gradient di￾rection iteratively for detailed and high-quality appearance and geometry completion within the mask. The loss in the mask of appea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual comparison with three representative approaches on two scenes. The first scene uses the prompt ‘A stair’ while the second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of different fine-tuning strategies for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of ablation study about each component. After adding BSD distillation, the blurriness around the edges is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mvip- nerf: Multi-view 3d inpainting on nerf scenes via diffusion prior

    Honghua Chen, Chen Change Loy, and Xingang Pan. Mvip- nerf: Multi-view 3d inpainting on nerf scenes via diffusion prior. In CVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Fantasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high-quality text-to-3d content creation

    Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fantasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high-quality text-to-3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13873, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12882– 12891, 2022. 3

    2022

  4. [4]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. In NeurIPS, volume 34, pages 8780–8794, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Image inpainting: A review

    Omar Elharrouss, Noor Almaadeed, Somaya Al-Maadeed, and Younes Akbari. Image inpainting: A review. Neural Processing Letters, 51:2007–2028, 2020. 7

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Instruct-nerf2nerf: Editing 3d scenes with instructions

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A Efros, Alek- sander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Editing 3d scenes with instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12789, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Learn- ing a neural 3d texture space from 2d exemplars

    Philipp Henzler, Niloy J Mitra, and Tobias Ritschel. Learn- ing a neural 3d texture space from 2d exemplars. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8356–8364, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. In NeurIPS, 2020. 2

    2020

  2. [10]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations , 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  3. [11]

    Dreamtime: An improved optimiza- tion strategy for text-to-3d content creation

    Yukun Huang, Jianan Wang, Yukai Shi, Xianbiao Qi, Zheng- Jun Zha, and Lei Zhang. Dreamtime: An improved optimiza- tion strategy for text-to-3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12422, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In ICML,

  5. [13]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Editing condi- tional radiance fields

    Steven Liu, Xiuming Zhang, Zhoutong Zhang, Richard Zhang, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Bryan Russell. Editing condi- tional radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 5773–5783,

  7. [15]

    Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures

    Gal Metzer, Elad Richardson, Or Patashnik, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 12663–12673, 2023. 3

    2023

  8. [16]

    Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view syn- thesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 2019. 2, 6

    2019

  9. [17]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In European Conference on Computer Vision, volume 12346, pages 405–421. Springer, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  10. [18]

    Spin-nerf: Multiview segmentation and perceptual inpainting with neural radiance fields

    Ashkan Mirzaei, Tristan Aumentado-Armstrong, Konstanti- nos G Derpanis, Jonathan Kelly, Marcus A Brubaker, Igor Gilitschenski, and Alex Levinshtein. Spin-nerf: Multiview segmentation and perceptual inpainting with neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conferen...

  11. [19]

    Laterf: Label and text driven object radiance fields

    Ashkan Mirzaei, Yash Kant, Jonathan Kelly, and Igor Gilitschenski. Laterf: Label and text driven object radiance fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 20–36. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learn- ing implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision

    Michael Niemeyer, Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, and Andreas Geiger. Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learn- ing implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 3504–3515, 2020. 2

    2020

  13. [21]

    Paral- lel wavenet: Fast high-fidelity speech synthesis

    Aaron Oord, Yazhe Li, Igor Babuschkin, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Koray Kavukcuoglu, George Driessche, Ed- ward Lockhart, Luis Cobo, Florian Stimberg, et al. Paral- lel wavenet: Fast high-fidelity speech synthesis. In Inter- national conference on machine learning, pages 3...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  16. [24]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, pa...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, Patrick Schramowski, Srivatsa Kundurthy, Katherine Crowson, Ludwig Schmidt, Robert Kaczmarczyk, and Jenia Jitsev. Lai...

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Con- trol4d: Dynamic portrait editing by learning 4d gan from 2d diffusion-based editor

    Ruizhi Shao, Jingxiang Sun, Cheng Peng, Zerong Zheng, Boyao Zhou, Hongwen Zhang, and Yebin Liu. Con- trol4d: Dynamic portrait editing by learning 4d gan from 2d diffusion-based editor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20082,

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration, 2023

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration, 2023. 3

    2023

  20. [28]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015. 2

    2015

  21. [29]

    Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , page 2256–2265,

  22. [30]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. In International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2021. 2

    2021

  23. [31]

    Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions

    Roman Suvorov, Elizaveta Logacheva, Anton Mashikhin, Anastasia Remizova, Arsenii Ashukha, Aleksei Silvestrov, Naejin Kong, Harshith Goka, Kiwoong Park, and Victor Lempitsky. Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Dai, Andrea F

    Igor Vasiljevic, Nick Kolkin, Shanyi Zhang, Ruotian Luo, Haochen Wang, Falcon Z. Dai, Andrea F. Daniele, Moham- madreza Mostajabi, Steven Basart, Matthew R. Walter, and Gregory Shakhnarovich. DIODE: A Dense Indoor and Out- door DEpth Dataset. CoRR, abs/1908.00463, 2019. 3, 4

    1908 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven manip- ulation of neural radiance fields

    Can Wang, Menglei Chai, Mingming He, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. Clip-nerf: Text-and-image driven manip- ulation of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3835–3844, 2022. 2

    2022

  26. [34]

    Inpaintnerf360: Text-guided 3d inpainting on unbounded neural radiance fields

    Dongqing Wang, Tong Zhang, Alaa Abboud, and Sabine S¨usstrunk. Inpaintnerf360: Text-guided 3d inpainting on unbounded neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15094, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distilla- tion

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distilla- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16213, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nerfiller: Completing scenes via generative 3d inpainting

    Ethan Weber, Aleksander Holynski, Varun Jampani, Saurabh Saxena, Noah Snavely, Abhishek Kar, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfiller: Completing scenes via generative 3d inpainting. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  29. [37]

    Text-to-3d with classifier score distillation

    Xin Yu, Yuan-Chen Guo, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang, Song- Hai Zhang, and Xiaojuan Qi. Text-to-3d with classifier score distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19415, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hifa: High-fidelity text- to-3d with advanced diffusion guidance

    Joseph Zhu and Peiye Zhuang. Hifa: High-fidelity text- to-3d with advanced diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18766, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields

    Jingyu Zhuang, Chen Wang, Lingjie Liu, Liang Lin, and Guanbin Li. Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13455, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A task is worth one word: Learning with task prompts for high-quality versatile image inpainting, 2023

    Junhao Zhuang, Yanhong Zeng, Wenran Liu, Chun Yuan, and Kai Chen. A task is worth one word: Learning with task prompts for high-quality versatile image inpainting, 2023. 4

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.