Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

A Lesson in Splats: Teacher-Guided Diffusion for 3D Gaussian Splats Generation with 2D Supervision

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper claims a 3D Gaussian Splat diffusion model can be trained from ordinary 2D images, using a deterministic reconstruction model as a "noisy teacher", and that this model consistently outperforms that teacher.

desk verdict A genuinely useful training recipe for 3D diffusion with 2D supervision, but the stated critical-timestep justification is shakier than the paper admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00623 v3 pith:D72YCJEN submitted 2024-12-01 cs.CV

Chensheng Peng , Ido Sobol , Masayoshi Tomizuka , Kurt Keutzer , Chenfeng Xu , Or Litany This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplatsdiffusionmodels2Dsupervisionsingle-imagereconstructionnovelviewsynthesisteacher-guidedsparse-viewimage-conditionedgeneration
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

Recovering a 3D scene from one image is ambiguous, and deterministic reconstruction models trained with 2D images tend to blur uncertain regions. The paper's claim is that a diffusion model can do better while still training on 2D images only, with no 3D ground truth. The mechanism is a 'noisy teacher' — a deterministic single-image reconstruction model — whose imperfect 3D Gaussian Splat predictions (a point-cloud-like 3D representation rendered to images) are fed into the diffusion denoiser as noisy inputs, while supervision comes from rendering the denoised splats to reference views and comparing with real 2D images. A critical noise level makes the teacher's predictions, once noised, stand in for true 3D data; multi-step denoising then lets the model learn fine detail below that level using 2D losses alone. If right, the framework turns any deterministic reconstruction model into a generative one and delivers consistent quality gains on object and scene benchmarks, including PSNR increases of 0.84 and 0.78 over Splatter Image on ShapeNet-SRN cars and chairs and about 0.5 over Flash3D on RealEstate10K.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the decoupling of the source of noised samples from the source of supervision. A pretrained deterministic model ('noisy teacher') supplies an imperfect splat prediction $\mathbf{s}^{\mathrm{teacher}}_0$, which is pushed to high-noise timesteps by $\mathbf{s}_t = \sqrt{\alpha_t}\,\mathbf{s}^{\mathrm{teacher}}_0 + \sqrt{1-\alpha_t}\,\epsilon$ for $t \ge t^\ast$, a regime where teacher-induced noise is assumed to overlap the forward-noised true distribution. The denoiser $D_\theta$ is then run in a multi-step, unrolled (DDIM) loop down to the clean estimate $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_0$, and the differentiable renderer $R(\cdot, v)$ turns $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_0$ into images supervised by target views; gradients flow back through all denoising steps. A cycle-consistency term renders $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_0$ to a target view, feeds that rendered image back through the reconstruction pipeline, and compares the resulting source-view rendering with the original input image $\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{src}}$.

What would settle it

On a dataset with ground-truth 3D Splats, compute a two-sample distance between the teacher-noised distribution $\sqrt{\alpha_t}\,\mathbf{s}^{\mathrm{teacher}}_0 + \sqrt{1-\alpha_t}\,\epsilon$ and the true-noised distribution $\sqrt{\alpha_t}\,\mathbf{s}^*_0 + \sqrt{1-\alpha_t}\,\epsilon$ across the full timestep range; if no $t \ge t^\ast$ interval shows near-overlap, or the crossover is far from the chosen $t^\ast=20$, the second-stage training distribution is biased. A direct behavioral check is whether the PSNR gain persists on a class where teacher failures are structured, such as consistently missing occluded surfaces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard diffusion requirement of same-modality supervision can be broken: the denoiser operates on 3D Gaussian Splats while the supervision is ordinary 2D images. The paper formalizes this with a pretrained deterministic image-to-3DGS model used as a 'noisy teacher.' Its imperfect prediction $\mathbf{s}^{\mathrm{teacher}}_0$ is noised to timesteps $t \geq t^\ast$, where, the paper argues, the teacher-induced noised samples line up with what forward noising of the true 3D structure would produce. Rather than regress to the teacher, the denoiser is trained through multi-step (DDIM) unrolling so the final clean splats $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_0$ can be rendered to target views and supervised by image losses, plus a cycle-consistency term that renders the predicted target back to the source view and compares with the input image. The paper reports that, despite a smaller network, this model improves PSNR by 0.84 and 0.78 over Splatter Image on ShapeNet-SRN cars and chairs, by about 0.5 over Flash3D on RealEstate10K, and can consume a second view as guidance for further gains.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that above some critical noise level, adding Gaussian noise to the teacher's imperfect 3D predictions makes those noisy samples statistically indistinguishable from noised true 3D structure; if the teacher's errors are structured rather than random, the training distribution is biased and the reported gains may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ground-truth 3D data stops being a bottleneck: 3D diffusion models can be trained from large collections of posed 2D images, matching the data that deterministic reconstruction models already use.
  • Any current deterministic feed-forward reconstruction model can be upgraded into a generative one by wrapping it as the noisy teacher, since the paper demonstrates the recipe with two different teachers on object and scene data.
  • The model retains diffusion-style guidance at inference: an additional view can steer the denoising process and improves two-view reconstruction over plain 3DGS optimization (25.55 vs 25.24 PSNR on the car subset).
  • Because the final stage is supervised only by rendering losses, the model's Gaussian splats become denser and more regularly shaped, which removes part of the blurriness and artifacts seen in deterministic teacher outputs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the noise-overlap premise holds, the same decoupling should transfer to other 3D representations (meshes, radiance fields, point clouds) and any differentiable renderer; the paper states this flexibility but does not test it.
  • The reported metrics measure reconstruction fidelity, not diversity; a natural extension is to check whether the model samples multiple distinct plausible 3D interpretations of a single image.
  • The fixed critical timestep $t^\ast = 20$ is set without a published sensitivity study, so sweeping it on one dataset would reveal whether the gains are robust or require per-dataset tuning.
  • Since stage 1 bootstrapping is bounded by the teacher, a better teacher should raise the floor for the final model; this suggests an easy scaling path as deterministic reconstruction models improve.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training framework for image-conditioned 3D Gaussian Splat (3DGS) diffusion models that uses only 2D supervision. A pretrained deterministic image-to-3D model (Splatter Image or Flash3D) serves as a 'noisy teacher': in stage 1, the diffusion model is bootstrapped by denoising teacher predictions with direct 3D and rendering losses; in stage 2, the teacher is removed from the supervision loss and the model is fine-tuned via multi-step denoising with a rendering loss against target views, supported by a cycle-consistency loss. Experiments on ShapeNet-SRN cars/chairs, RealEstate10K, and Co3D hydrant report consistent PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS improvements over the respective teachers, with the diffusion model using a smaller U-Net than the teacher.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper offers a scalable alternative to full-3D supervision for 3D diffusion models, which is a timely and practically important problem. The decoupling of the denoised modality (3D) from the supervision modality (2D) is conceptually interesting and the empirical recipe is validated on three datasets with two different teachers. The ablations usefully isolate the contributions of bootstrapping, multi-step denoising, and cycle consistency, and the smaller-model/larger-performance result is a positive signal. However, the central theoretical premise is unproven and the evaluation lacks error bars, so the significance is tempered until these points are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 (Eq. 1) and Supplementary Sec. 8] The central premise that for all t >= t* the noised teacher predictions st = sqrt(alpha_t) s_teacher + sqrt(1-alpha_t) epsilon are statistically aligned with forward-noised true 3DGS is asserted without proof, and the paper does not report any empirical check of this alignment. Because the decoupling argument in Eqs. (3)-(4) and the restriction to t > t* rest on this premise, it is load-bearing. The supplementary sets t*=20 with no sensitivity analysis, and under the stated linear schedule (100 steps, beta from 0.0001 to 0.2) alpha_20 is approximately 0.68, so the teacher's systematic errors dominate the added Gaussian noise. I ask the authors to either (i) provide a direct validation of the distribution-matching assumption on a subset where 3D ground truth is available, (ii) perform a sensitivity analysis over t* and show that the reported gains are robust, or (iii) revise the theoretical claim to a weaker empirically motivated heuristic. Without one of these, the mechanism attributed to the improvements is not established.
  2. [Table 4 / Sec. 4.5] The quantitative gains over the teacher are modest (0.84 and 0.78 dB PSNR on ShapeNet-SRN cars and chairs, 0.5 dB average on RealEstate10K), and all main tables report averages without error bars, confidence intervals, or a statement about the number of seeds. Given the size of the improvements, the 'consistently improves' claim is weakened unless the authors report variance across at least three training runs or an appropriate statistical comparison. This is especially important because Table 4 (a.2) shows a large drop for the Medium feedforward model, and the ablation rows do not indicate whether differences such as (b.3) versus (b.4) are significant.
  3. [Eq. (4) and Supplementary Sec. 8] The multi-step denoising loss L_mlt-stp in Eq. (4) is presented as the core stage-2 objective, but the per-step weights lambda_t are never specified. The supplementary mentions 'different weights' and Table 9 compares weighted versus unweighted loss, but the actual schedule is missing. Without this, the stage-2 recipe is not reproducible. Please provide the exact lambda_t schedule (or its functional form) and the DDIM step details used in both training and inference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1] There is a typo: 'sprase 2D views' should be 'sparse 2D views'.
  2. [Table 4] The table has duplicate labels '(c.1)' for the two stage-I consistency rows; the second row should be labeled '(c.2)'.
  3. [Throughout] The method is referred to as both 'SplatDiffusion' (Tables 1, 2) and 'Ours' (Tables 3-5, text); please unify the naming.
  4. [Sec. 2] The related work does not mention recent large reconstruction models such as LRM or GS-LRM; a brief discussion would help position the deterministic teacher comparisons in the broader context.
  5. [Sec. 4.4] The guidance mechanism is described only briefly in the main text and detailed in the supplementary; consider including the guidance strength schedule s(t) in the main text, as it is a factor in reproducing the view-guidance results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: stage-2 supervision is ground-truth 2D rendering only, and the teacher enters as a noisy initialization, not as the final prediction target.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. In stage 1 (Eqs. 5-7) the teacher supplies both the noisy 3D samples and the 3D/2D supervision, but the paper treats this only as bootstrapping. The claimed final result comes from stage 2 (Eq. 4), where the loss is L_mlt-stp = E[ lambda_t || x^v_tgt - R(hat s_0, v) ||^2 ] with hat s_0 produced by multi-step denoising; the teacher appears only in the initialization s_t = sqrt(alpha_t) s_teacher^0 + sqrt(1-alpha_t) epsilon and is absent from the supervision term. The reported improvements (PSNR +0.84/+0.78 on ShapeNet-SRN and +0.5 on RealEstate10K) are measured against Splatter Image and Flash3D on held-out test views, so they are not the teacher values renamed as predictions. The 'critical timestep' premise in Sec. 3.1 (that for t >= t* teacher-noised samples align with forward-noised true 3DGS) is a stated assumption, not a fitted or self-referential quantity; it is a correctness/validation weakness (t*=20 is set in the supplementary with no sensitivity analysis), but an unsupported premise is not circularity. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., LION, Zero-to-Hero, CompGS) appear only in related-work or application context and do not carry the load-bearing argument. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external teacher baselines.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central unpaid input is the assumption that teacher noise matches ground-truth noise at high timesteps, plus several hyperparameters that are known to affect results but are not reported with sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • Critical timestep t* = 20
    Hand-chosen threshold separating teacher-dominated noise levels from fine-detail levels; set without sensitivity analysis in Supp. Sec. 8.
  • Noise schedule and total steps = linear schedule from 1e-4 to 0.2 over 100 steps
    Standard diffusion schedule chosen for training; affects the distribution of noised samples and the validity of the t* assumption.
  • Stage-2 per-step loss weights lambda_t = not stated numerically
    The weighted-loss ablation (Supp. Tab. 9) shows this choice materially affects results, but the weights are not reported.
  • DDIM steps used in multi-step training and consistency branch = 10
    Hyperparameter for unrolled denoising and cycle-consistency rendering; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Guidance strength s(t) = not specified
    Used in universal-guidance experiments (Supp. Eq. 11); value not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper For t >= t*, the noised teacher prediction approximately equals the noised true 3DGS in distribution (Eq. 1).
    This is the load-bearing premise for decoupling 3D denoising from 2D supervision; it is invoked in Sec. 3.1 and not proven.
  • domain assumption The differentiable renderer R(s,v) provides meaningful gradients for the 3DGS parameters.
    Assumed from 3D Gaussian splatting literature (Kerbl et al. 2023); used in all rendering losses.
  • domain assumption Backpropagating through multiple unrolled DDIM steps yields a stable and useful training signal.
    Required by the stage-2 multi-step denoising loss in Eq. 4; no stability analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The teacher's prediction errors are well-modeled by additive Gaussian noise at high noise levels.
    Underlies the choice of t*; teacher errors are likely structured (blur, missing regions), so this is a strong assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Lesson in Splats: Teacher-Guided Diffusion for 3D Gaussian Splats Generation with 2D Supervision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D72YCJEN

@misc{pith2026241200623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Lesson in Splats: Teacher-Guided Diffusion for 3D Gaussian Splats Generation with 2D Supervision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D72YCJEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00623}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel framework for training 3D image-conditioned diffusion models using only 2D supervision. Recovering 3D structure from 2D images is inherently ill-posed due to the ambiguity of possible reconstructions, making generative models a natural choice. However, most existing 3D generative models rely on full 3D supervision, which is impractical due to the scarcity of large-scale 3D datasets. To address this, we propose leveraging sparse-view supervision as a scalable alternative. While recent reconstruction models use sparse-view supervision with differentiable rendering to lift 2D images to 3D, they are predominantly deterministic, failing to capture the diverse set of plausible solutions and producing blurry predictions in uncertain regions. A key challenge in training 3D diffusion models with 2D supervision is that the standard training paradigm requires both the denoising process and supervision to be in the same modality. We address this by decoupling the noisy samples being denoised from the supervision signal, allowing the former to remain in 3D while the latter is provided in 2D. Our approach leverages suboptimal predictions from a deterministic image-to-3D model-acting as a "teacher"-to generate noisy 3D inputs, enabling effective 3D diffusion training without requiring full 3D ground truth. We validate our framework on both object-level and scene-level datasets, using two different 3D Gaussian Splat (3DGS) teachers. Our results show that our approach consistently improves upon these deterministic teachers, demonstrating its effectiveness in scalable and high-fidelity 3D generative modeling. See our project page at https://lesson-in-splats.github.io/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) Standard diffusion training is constrained to same-modality supervision. We break this barrier by decoupling the sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our proposed framework for noisy-teacher-guided training of a 3D Gaussian Splat (3DGS) diffusion model. Using a pre-trained deterministic predictor network for 3DGS, which we refer to as the “noisy teacher” (left), in stage 1 (top) we lift sampled views to generate an imperfect 3DGS prediction, providing noisy samples and supervision for the diffusion denoiser in 3DGS with additional image supervision. In stage 2 (b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results. (a) Qualitative comparison on the ShapeNet-SRN dataset. Our model produces views that are more faithful to the source image and better maintain plausibility. (b) Comparison of Gaussian Splat outputs between Splatter Image and our diffusion model shows that our model generates more regular patterns that closely follow the object surface. (c) Scene-level qualitative comparison on the RealEstate10K… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the denoising process of our diffusion models, trained on the Car and Chair categories of ShapeNet-SRN dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional qualitative results. Qualitative comparisons on the ShapeNet-SRN dataset for additional viewpoints and objects from the Car and Chair categories. Our model produces views that are more faithful to the source image and better maintain plausibility, while main…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional qualitative results. Qualitative comparisons on RealEstate10K dataset. Setting PSNR ↑ SSIM ↑ LPIPS ↓ w/o weighted loss 22.8848 0.9116 0.1044 w weighted loss 24.4936 0.9264 0.0945 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Polydiff: Generating 3d polygonal meshes with diffusion models

    Antonio Alliegro, Yawar Siddiqui, Tatiana Tommasi, and Matthias Nießner. Polydiff: Generating 3d polygonal meshes with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11417 ,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Ren- derdiffusion: Image diffusion for 3d reconstruction, inpaint- ing and generation

    Titas Anciukeviˇcius, Zexiang Xu, Matthew Fisher, Paul Hen- derson, Hakan Bilen, Niloy J Mitra, and Paul Guerrero. Ren- derdiffusion: Image diffusion for 3d reconstruction, inpaint- ing and generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 12608–12618, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Universal guidance for diffusion models

    Arpit Bansal, Hong-Min Chu, Avi Schwarzschild, Soumyadip Sengupta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Gold- stein. Universal guidance for diffusion models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 843–852, 2023. 6, 4

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Gaudi: A neural architect for immersive 3d scene generation

    Miguel Angel Bautista, Pengsheng Guo, Samira Abnar, Wal- ter Talbott, Alexander Toshev, Zhuoyuan Chen, Laurent Dinh, Shuangfei Zhai, Hanlin Goh, Daniel Ulbricht, et al. Gaudi: A neural architect for immersive 3d scene generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25102–25116,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Chan, Koki Nagano, Matthew A

    Eric R. Chan, Koki Nagano, Matthew A. Chan, Alexan- der W. Bergman, Jeong Joon Park, Axel Levy, Miika Ait- tala, Shalini De Mello, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. GeNVS: Generative novel view synthesis with 3D-aware dif- fusion models. In arXiv, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Shapenet: An information- rich 3d model repository

    Angel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, et al. Shapenet: An information- rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012,

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Single-stage diffusion nerf: A unified approach to 3d generation and reconstruction

    Hansheng Chen, Jiatao Gu, Anpei Chen, Wei Tian, Zhuowen Tu, Lingjie Liu, and Hao Su. Single-stage diffusion nerf: A unified approach to 3d generation and reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 2416–2425, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mcn-slam: Multi-agent collaborative neural slam with hybrid implicit neural scene representation

    Tianchen Deng, Guole Shen, Xun Chen, Shenghai Yuan, Hongming Shen, Guohao Peng, Zhenyu Wu, Jingchuan Wang, Lihua Xie, Danwei Wang, Hesheng Wang, and Weidong Chen. Mcn-slam: Multi-agent collaborative neural slam with hybrid implicit neural scene representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18678, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Mne-slam: Multi-agent neural slam for mobile robots

    Tianchen Deng, Guole Shen, Chen Xun, Shenghai Yuan, Tongxin Jin, Hongming Shen, Yanbo Wang, Jingchuan Wang, Hesheng Wang, Danwei Wang, et al. Mne-slam: Multi-agent neural slam for mobile robots. In Proceedings of the Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages ...

    2025

  2. [10]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 2

    2021

  3. [11]

    From data to functa: Your data point is a function and you can treat it like one

    Emilien Dupont, Hyunjik Kim, SM Eslami, Danilo Rezende, and Dan Rosenbaum. From data to functa: Your data point is a function and you can treat it like one. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12204, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Ruiqi Gao*, Aleksander Holynski*, Philipp Henzler, Arthur Brussee, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Poole*. Cat3d: Create any- thing in 3d with multi-view diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 3

    2024

  5. [13]

    Compgs: Unleashing 2d compositional- ity for compositional text-to-3d via dynamically optimizing 3d gaussians

    Chongjian Ge, Chenfeng Xu, Yuanfeng Ji, Chensheng Peng, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Ping Luo, Mingyu Ding, Varun Jam- pani, and Wei Zhan. Compgs: Unleashing 2d compositional- ity for compositional text-to-3d via dynamically optimizing 3d gaussians. In Proceedings of the Computer Visio...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Nerfdiff: Single-image view synthesis with nerf-guided distil- lation from 3d-aware diffusion

    Jiatao Gu, Alex Trevithick, Kai-En Lin, Joshua M Susskind, Christian Theobalt, Lingjie Liu, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Nerfdiff: Single-image view synthesis with nerf-guided distil- lation from 3d-aware diffusion. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11808–11826. ...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Fast and explicit neural view synthesis

    Pengsheng Guo, Miguel Angel Bautista, Alex Colburn, Liang Yang, Daniel Ulbricht, Joshua M Susskind, and Qi Shan. Fast and explicit neural view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 3791–3800, 2022. 6

    2022

  8. [16]

    Delta denoising score

    Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Delta denoising score. In CVPR, pages 2328–2337, 2023. 3

    2023

  9. [17]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

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

    2020

  10. [18]

    Viewdiff: 3d-consistent image generation with text-to-image models

    Lukas Höllein, Aljaž Božiˇc, Norman Müller, David Novotny, Hung-Yu Tseng, Christian Richardt, Michael Zollhöfer, and Matthias Nießner. Viewdiff: 3d-consistent image generation with text-to-image models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern R...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d

    Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04400, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Codenerf: Disentangled neural radiance fields for object categories

    Wonbong Jang and Lourdes Agapito. Codenerf: Disentangled neural radiance fields for object categories. In CVPR, pages 12949–12958, 2021. 6

    2021

  13. [21]

    Holodiffusion: Training a 3d diffusion model using 2d images

    Animesh Karnewar, Andrea Vedaldi, David Novotny, and Niloy J Mitra. Holodiffusion: Training a 3d diffusion model using 2d images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 18423– 18433, 2023. 3

    2023

  14. [22]

    Noise-free score distillation

    Oren Katzir, Or Patashnik, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Dani Lischinski. Noise-free score distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17590, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1, 2023. 2, 7 9

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017. 3

    2017

  17. [25]

    Vivid-1-to-3: Novel view synthesis with video diffusion models

    Jeong-gi Kwak, Erqun Dong, Yuhe Jin, Hanseok Ko, Shweta Mahajan, and Kwang Moo Yi. Vivid-1-to-3: Novel view synthesis with video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6775–6785, 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Dreamflow: High-quality text-to-3d generation by approximating proba- bility flow

    Kyungmin Lee, Kihyuk Sohn, and Jinwoo Shin. Dreamflow: High-quality text-to-3d generation by approximating proba- bility flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14966, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mine: Towards continuous depth mpi with nerf for novel view synthesis

    Jiaxin Li, Zijian Feng, Qi She, Henghui Ding, Changhu Wang, and Gim Hee Lee. Mine: Towards continuous depth mpi with nerf for novel view synthesis. In CVPR, pages 12578–12588,

  20. [28]

    Vision transformer for nerf-based view synthesis from a single input image

    Kai-En Lin, Yen-Chen Lin, Wei-Sheng Lai, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yi- Chang Shih, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. Vision transformer for nerf-based view synthesis from a single input image. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 806–815, 2023. 6, 1

    2023

  21. [29]

    Point mamba: A novel point cloud backbone based on state space model with octree-based ordering strategy

    Jiuming Liu, Ruiji Yu, Yian Wang, Yu Zheng, Tianchen Deng, Weicai Ye, and Hesheng Wang. Point mamba: A novel point cloud backbone based on state space model with octree-based ordering strategy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06467, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dvlo: Deep visual- lidar odometry with local-to-global feature fusion and bi- directional structure alignment

    Jiuming Liu, Dong Zhuo, Zhiheng Feng, Siting Zhu, Chen- sheng Peng, Zhe Liu, and Hesheng Wang. Dvlo: Deep visual- lidar odometry with local-to-global feature fusion and bi- directional structure alignment. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 475–493. Springer, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tokmakov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. In CVPR, pages 9298–9309, 2023. 3

    2023

  24. [32]

    Syncdreamer: Gener- ating multiview-consistent images from a single-view image

    Yuan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Gener- ating multiview-consistent images from a single-view image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03453, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Meshdiffusion: Score- based generative 3d mesh modeling

    Zhen Liu, Yao Feng, Michael J Black, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Liam Paull, and Weiyang Liu. Meshdiffusion: Score- based generative 3d mesh modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08133, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2837–2845, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  27. [35]

    Jacobs, Alexei A

    David McAllister, Songwei Ge, Jia-Bin Huang, David W. Jacobs, Alexei A. Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Rethinking score distillation as a bridge between image distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09417, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jiajun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 2, 4

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    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. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gsd: View-guided gaussian splatting diffusion for 3d reconstruction

    Yuxuan Mu, Xinxin Zuo, Chuan Guo, Yilin Wang, Juwei Lu, Xiaofeng Wu, Songcen Xu, Peng Dai, Youliang Yan, and Li Cheng. Gsd: View-guided gaussian splatting diffusion for 3d reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04237, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Diffrf: Rendering-guided 3d radiance field diffusion

    Norman Müller, Yawar Siddiqui, Lorenzo Porzi, Samuel Rota Bulo, Peter Kontschieder, and Matthias Nießner. Diffrf: Rendering-guided 3d radiance field diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4328–4338, 2023. 3

    2023

  32. [40]

    Delflow: Dense efficient learning of scene flow for large-scale point clouds

    Chensheng Peng, Guangming Wang, Xian Wan Lo, Xinrui Wu, Chenfeng Xu, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Wei Zhan, and Hesheng Wang. Delflow: Dense efficient learning of scene flow for large-scale point clouds. In CVPR, pages 16901– 16910, 2023. 3

    2023

  33. [41]

    Q-slam: Quadric representations for monocular slam

    Chensheng Peng, Chenfeng Xu, Yue Wang, Mingyu Ding, Heng Yang, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Kurt Keutzer, Marco Pavone, and Wei Zhan. Q-slam: Quadric representations for monocular slam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08125, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pnas-mot: multi-modal object tracking with pareto neural architecture search

    Chensheng Peng, Zhaoyu Zeng, Jinling Gao, Jundong Zhou, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Xinbing Wang, Chenghu Zhou, and Nanyang Ye. Pnas-mot: multi-modal object tracking with pareto neural architecture search. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, 9(5):4377–4384, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    Desire-gs: 4d street gaussians for static-dynamic decomposition and surface reconstruction for urban driving scenes

    Chensheng Peng, Chengwei Zhang, Yixiao Wang, Chenfeng Xu, Yichen Xie, Wenzhao Zheng, Kurt Keutzer, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Wei Zhan. Desire-gs: 4d street gaussians for static-dynamic decomposition and surface reconstruction for urban driving scenes. In Proceedings of the Compu...

    2025

  36. [44]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Magic123: One image to high-quality 3d object generation using both 2d and 3d diffusion priors

    Guocheng Qian, Jinjie Mai, Abdullah Hamdi, Jian Ren, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Bing Li, Hsin-Ying Lee, Ivan Sko- rokhodov, Peter Wonka, Sergey Tulyakov, and Bernard Ghanem. Magic123: One image to high-quality 3d object generation using both 2d and 3d diffusion priors. In The Twelft...

    2024

  38. [46]

    L3dg: Latent 3d gaussian diffusion

    Barbara Roessle, Norman Müller, Lorenzo Porzi, Samuel Rota Bulò, Peter Kontschieder, Angela Dai, and Matthias Nießner. L3dg: Latent 3d gaussian diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13530, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn 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

  40. [48]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4104– 4113, 2016. 3

    2016

  41. [49]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gener- ation, 2024

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gener- ation, 2024. 3 10

    2024

  42. [50]

    3d neural field generation using triplane diffusion

    J Ryan Shue, Eric Ryan Chan, Ryan Po, Zachary Ankner, Jiajun Wu, and Gordon Wetzstein. 3d neural field generation using triplane diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20875–20886, 2023. 3

    2023

  43. [51]

    Scene representation networks: Continuous 3d-structure- aware neural scene representations

    Vincent Sitzmann, Michael Zollhöfer, and Gordon Wetzstein. Scene representation networks: Continuous 3d-structure- aware neural scene representations. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 32, 2019. 5, 6, 3

    2019

  44. [52]

    Zero-to-hero: En- hancing zero-shot novel view synthesis via attention map filtering

    Ido Sobol, Chenfeng Xu, and Or Litany. Zero-to-hero: En- hancing zero-shot novel view synthesis via attention map filtering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18677, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Viewset diffusion:(0-) image-conditioned 3d genera- tive models from 2d data

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Viewset diffusion:(0-) image-conditioned 3d genera- tive models from 2d data. In CVPR, pages 8863–8873, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 1

    2023

  46. [54]

    Flash3d: Feed-forward generalisable 3d scene reconstruction from a single image

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Eldar Insafutdinov, Chuanxia Zheng, Dylan Campbell, João F Henriques, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Flash3d: Feed-forward generalisable 3d scene reconstruction from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04343, 2024. 2, 3, 5, 6

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3d reconstruc- tion

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Chrisitian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Splatter image: Ultra-fast single-view 3d reconstruc- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10208–10217,

  48. [56]

    Diffusion with forward models: Solv- ing stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision

    Ayush Tewari, Tianwei Yin, George Cazenavette, Semon Rezchikov, Josh Tenenbaum, Frédo Durand, Bill Freeman, and Vincent Sitzmann. Diffusion with forward models: Solv- ing stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Single-view view synthe- sis with multiplane images

    Richard Tucker and Noah Snavely. Single-view view synthe- sis with multiplane images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 551–560, 2020. 6

    2020

  50. [58]

    Lion: Latent point diffusion mod- els for 3d shape generation

    Arash Vahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojcic, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, Karsten Kreis, et al. Lion: Latent point diffusion mod- els for 3d shape generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:10021–10039, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  51. [59]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4): 600–612, 2004. 5

    2004

  52. [60]

    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. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36,

  53. [61]

    Novel view synthesis with diffusion models

    Daniel Watson, William Chan, Ricardo Martin Brualla, Jonathan Ho, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Mohammad Norouzi. Novel view synthesis with diffusion models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 3

    2023

  54. [62]

    Synsin: End-to-end view synthesis from a single image

    Olivia Wiles, Georgia Gkioxari, Richard Szeliski, and Justin Johnson. Synsin: End-to-end view synthesis from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition, pages 7467–7477, 2020. 6

    2020

  55. [63]

    Behind the scenes: Density fields for single view reconstruction

    Felix Wimbauer, Nan Yang, Christian Rupprecht, and Daniel Cremers. Behind the scenes: Density fields for single view reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9076– 9086, 2023. 6

    2023

  56. [64]

    Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Jonathan T

    Rundi Wu, Ben Mildenhall, Philipp Henzler, Keunhong Park, Ruiqi Gao, Daniel Watson, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Poole, and Aleksander Holynski. Reconfusion: 3d reconstruction with diffusion priors. arXiv,

  57. [65]

    3diff- tection: 3d object detection with geometry-aware diffusion features

    Chenfeng Xu, Huan Ling, Sanja Fidler, and Or Litany. 3diff- tection: 3d object detection with geometry-aware diffusion features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 10617– 10627, 2024. 3

    2024

  58. [66]

    Dmv3d: Denoising multi-view diffusion using 3d large reconstruction model

    Yinghao Xu, Hao Tan, Fujun Luan, Sai Bi, Peng Wang, Jiahao Li, Zifan Shi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Gordon Wetzstein, Zexiang Xu, et al. Dmv3d: Denoising multi-view diffusion using 3d large reconstruction model. ICLR, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  59. [67]

    Consistnet: Enforcing 3d consistency for multi-view images diffusion

    Jiayu Yang, Ziang Cheng, Yunfei Duan, Pan Ji, and Hong- dong Li. Consistnet: Enforcing 3d consistency for multi-view images diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7079–7088, 2024. 3

    2024

  60. [68]

    pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images

    Alex Yu, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4578–4587, 2021. 5, 6, 1

    2021

  61. [69]

    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. 3

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Gs-lrm: Large recon- struction model for 3d gaussian splatting

    Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. Gs-lrm: Large recon- struction model for 3d gaussian splatting. European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, 2024. 2

    2024

  63. [71]

    Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric, 2018. 5

    2018

  64. [72]

    3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. 3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion. In CVPR, pages 5826–5835, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  65. [73]

    Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images

    Tinghui Zhou, Richard Tucker, John Flynn, Graham Fyffe, and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification: Learning view synthesis using multiplane images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09817, 2018. 5

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE interna- tional conference on computer vision, pages 2223–2232, 2017. 5 11 A Lesson in Splats: Teacher-Guid...

    2017

  67. [75]

    Quantitative results Co3D is an object-level dataset captured in the real world

    Additional results 6.1. Quantitative results Co3D is an object-level dataset captured in the real world. We train our model on the Co3D hydrant class (with Splatter Image [55] as the teacher model) and compared it against ViewSet Diffusion [53] and Splatter Image [55] in Table...

    1992

  68. [76]

    ShapeNet-SRN Cars and Chairs We adhere to the standard protocol for the ShapeNet-SRN dataset

    Data details 7.1. ShapeNet-SRN Cars and Chairs We adhere to the standard protocol for the ShapeNet-SRN dataset. Specifically, we use the provided images, camera 2 Figure 6. Additional qualitative results. Qualitative comparisons on RealEstate10K dataset. Setting PSNR ↑ SSIM ↑ ...

  69. [77]

    We train the model on 4 NVIDIA A6000 GPUs

    Implementation details Multi-step Denoising. We train the model on 4 NVIDIA A6000 GPUs. Our diffusion model is quite efficient . For bootstrapping at stage 1, we use a batch size of 100 on each GPU. After obtaining the diffusion model from the teacher model, we perform multi-s...

Pith tools

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