Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

LiftRefine: Progressively Refined View Synthesis from 3D Lifting with Volume-Triplane Representations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LiftRefine's progressive 3D lifting surpasses prior view synthesis.

desk verdict Solid two-stage view synthesis with real benchmark gains, but the progressive-refinement novelty is not isolated and the Objaverse claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14464 v1 pith:QT2USPFL submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV cs.GR

Tung Do , Thuan Hoang Nguyen , Anh Tuan Tran , Rang Nguyen , Binh-Son Hua This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords novelviewsynthesisneuralradiancefieldtri-planerepresentationvolumetricrenderinglatentdiffusionprogressiveinferencesingle-viewreconstructionfew-view
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 proposes a two-stage method for synthesizing novel views of an object from one or a few input images. The first stage lifts the input into a coarse 3D volume and then into a fine tri-plane representation, which is rendered to both an image and a feature map at the target camera pose. The second stage uses a latent diffusion model, conditioned on that feature map and a CLIP embedding of the input, to hallucinate details in occluded regions. The added contribution is progressive inference: the output of the diffusion model at an intermediate camera pose is appended to the input buffer, and the two stages are repeated so that the reconstructor gradually sees more of the object. The paper reports consistent gains over SparseFusion, ViewsetDiffusion, OpenLRM, Splatter Image, and LaRa on CO3D, GSO, and ShapeNet-SRN Cars, with the diffusion-based setting improving LPIPS and FID while pixel-wise PSNR eases slightly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the progressive inference loop, supported by a two-stage model. Stage 1, the Lift reconstructor, projects image features into a low-resolution volume, then upsamples that volume through a tri-plane decoder into a high-resolution tri-plane that can be rendered to images and feature maps. Stage 2, the Refine diffusion model, is a latent diffusion U-Net initialized from Zero123 that denoises a target latent conditioned on the rendered feature map and on the CLIP embedding of the input. In progressive inference, the reconstructor renders a feature map at an interpolated camera pose, the diffusion model generates an intermediate view, that view is appended to the image buffer, and the process repeats until the target view is rendered. This loop is what the paper claims couples 3D consistency with 2D realism.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison on CO3D-Hydrant that keeps the total number of diffusion denoising steps fixed and compares (a) one diffusion pass straight to the target view against (b) the progressive loop with four interpolated views; if (b) does not beat (a) on FID or LPIPS, the progressive-refinement claim is not supported. Additionally, measure the multi-view consistency of the generated buffer (e.g., by re-rendering from the final tri-plane and checking reprojection error against the intermediate views) and check whether consistency degrades as the number of iterations grows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 3D reconstructor and a 2D diffusion refiner, when combined through a progressive loop, give both the multi-view consistency of a neural field and the sharpness of a generative model. The reconstructor alone produces blurry but view-consistent results in unseen regions; the diffusion model alone produces sharp but somewhat inconsistent views. Progressive inference lets the two correct each other: each newly generated view is treated as an additional input to the reconstructor, and the final tri-plane is used to render the target. On the reported benchmarks the method beats the deterministic and probabilistic baselines, and the paper emphasizes that the volume-plus-triplane design needs far less compute than transformer-based LRM (4 A100 GPUs for 7 days versus 128 for 3 days).

Load-bearing premise

The progressive loop assumes that diffusion-generated intermediate views—which the supplement concedes are slightly inconsistent across angles—can be safely added to the input buffer and will strengthen rather than corrupt the volume-triplane reconstruction, even though the reconstructor was trained on real views only.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, single-image synthesis closes much of the gap to few-view synthesis in occluded regions, since the CO3D comparison shows one-view diffusion output approaching three-view deterministic quality.
  • The progressive loop gives a direct quality knob: more interpolation steps trade pixel-wise metrics for distribution-level realism, with 4 iterations offering the best balance on CO3D-Hydrant.
  • The two-stage design appears more data- and compute-efficient than transformer-based tri-plane reconstruction, which matters for scaling to large 3D datasets.
  • The diffusion setting's lower FID and LPIPS suggest the rendered views are perceptually closer to real novel-view distributions, not just pixel-wise closer to ground truth.
  • Because the reconstructor is a generalizable neural field, the method supports arbitrary output poses, unlike fixed-set multi-view generators such as SyncDreamer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The feedback loop is a form of self-conditioning at test time; a direct extension would weight generated views by the diffusion model's estimated confidence so that uncertain pseudo-views do not degrade the reconstructor (the paper does not test such weighting).
  • A same-budget ablation—same total diffusion denoising steps spent on one target view versus spread over n interpolated views—would isolate whether the gain comes from the loop itself or simply from more sampling; the paper does not report this ablation.
  • Since the diffusion model is initialized from a pretrained image-to-3D model, the method likely inherits that model's biases on categories or viewpoints it was not trained on; testing on rare CO3D categories beyond Hydrant, Teddybear, Vase, and Plant would map those failure modes.
  • The supplement notes 'minor inconsistencies' in generated views; a quantitative multi-view consistency metric on the final render could tell whether progressive inference converges or drifts as iterations grow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LiftRefine, a two-stage method for single- and few-view novel view synthesis. Stage 1 trains a reconstruction model that lifts input images into a coarse volume and then a fine tri-plane representation, which can be rendered to images and feature maps. Stage 2 trains a latent diffusion model conditioned on the rendered feature map and a CLIP embedding of the input to hallucinate details in occluded regions. The paper's third contribution is a progressive inference procedure in which diffusion-generated intermediate views are appended to an image buffer and the reconstructor is re-run on the growing buffer, eventually rendering the final view. Experiments on CO3D, GSO, and ShapeNet-SRN Cars report improvements over several baselines, with ablations on the 3D representation, backbone, and number of progressive iterations.

Significance. The volume-plus-triplane reconstruction design is a sensible engineering contribution that appears to give strong deterministic reconstruction results, and the FID improvements from diffusion refinement are consistent with the literature on generative view synthesis. If the progressive-inference claim were properly isolated, the method would be a useful addition to the single/few-view reconstruction literature. The paper provides detailed architecture and training details in the supplement, and the qualitative results show clear improvements in occluded regions. However, the key novelty--iterative feedback of generated views into the reconstructor--is not supported by an experiment that separates the feedback mechanism from the extra diffusion compute, and the abstract's Objaverse claim is unsupported. These gaps prevent acceptance as is.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 5] The central claim that progressive inference improves reconstruction quality is not isolated. In Table 5, iteration 0 is the deterministic baseline, and every nonzero iteration includes both a diffusion sampling step and a feedback of the generated intermediate view into the reconstructor buffer. The improvements in FID and LPIPS between iterations 1 and 8 could therefore be caused by the additional diffusion calls, by the increased number of conditioning views, or by the progressive feedback itself. Please add an equal-budget comparison: hold the number of diffusion calls fixed (e.g., 4) and compare (a) one-shot diffusion applied to the final target view feature map, (b) diffusion applied to the final target view after feeding all generated intermediate views into the buffer in a single batch, and (c) the proposed progressive loop. Only (c) versus (b) isolates the iterative nature, and only (c) versus (a) measures the cost-effectiveness of feedback.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract claims empirical superiority on the 'large-scale Objaverse dataset,' but no quantitative evaluation on Objaverse appears anywhere in the main paper or supplement. Objaverse appears only as a training set. Either add Objaverse evaluation results (even a table in the supplement) or revise the abstract to remove this claim.
  3. [Supplementary Section 9 / Section 3.3] The progressive feedback loop assumes the reconstruction model generalizes to diffusion-generated pseudo-views, but the reconstructor was trained only on 1-3 ground-truth views (Supplementary Section 7), and Supplementary Section 9 states that the diffusion-generated GSO samples exhibit 'minor inconsistencies across views.' No experiment measures whether feeding such out-of-distribution views into the reconstructor degrades the triplane representation compared with feeding a ground-truth view at the same pose. Since this premise is structural to the method, it should be tested directly, for example by replacing the generated intermediate view with the ground-truth image at the same camera pose and measuring the change in final reconstruction metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text contains the typo 'SpareFusion' in the sentence discussing FID; it should be 'SparseFusion.'
  2. [Related Work] The sentence 'one ought to to utilize' has a duplicated 'to'; remove the repetition.
  3. [Conclusion] The word 'empowerd' should be 'empowered' in the final paragraph.
  4. [Supplementary Section 6.1] The supplement lists both ResNet34 and Dino-v2 as possible feature extractors, but the main paper never states which one is used in the reported experiments; please specify and note whether results differ between the two.
  5. [Table 4] Table 4 lists OpenLRM as an image-to-triplane backbone, but OpenLRM is a full reconstruction method; clarify what part is used as the backbone and how it is trained in this ablation.
  6. [Table 5] Table 5 reports single runs with no variance or significance information; the FID differences between adjacent settings are small (e.g., 34.7 vs 34.0), so error bars or multiple seeds are needed to support the ranking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LiftRefine's claims are supported by external benchmarks and standard losses, with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction.

full rationale

LiftRefine is an empirical systems paper whose contributions are validated against external benchmarks (CO3D, GSO, ShapeNet-SRN Cars) and external baselines (OpenLRM, Splatter Image, LaRa, ViewsetDiffusion, SparseFusion, SyncDreamer). I checked each load-bearing step for reduction to its own inputs. The reconstruction loss (Eq. 2) compares predicted renders against ground-truth target views with L2 and LPIPS, and the diffusion loss (Eq. 3) is a standard denoising objective conditioned on the reconstructor's feature maps; no reported metric is used as a training target or as a fitted parameter. Progressive inference (Sec. 3.3) is an inference-time feedback loop where diffusion-generated views are appended to the image buffer and the reconstructor is re-run; Table 5 varies the number of iterations, and although the paper does not isolate the feedback mechanism from the number of diffusion calls, that is an ablation gap or confound, not circularity, because the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS/FID values are measured, not constructed by definition. The iteration count (4) is selected on CO3D-Hydrant, but this is ordinary hyperparameter tuning and does not make the later comparisons definitional. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in via citation was found; the authors' own prior work is not invoked to justify the central claim. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the stated benchmarks.

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

The claim is an empirical performance claim, and the reported numbers are produced by a trained pipeline whose free parameters (iteration count, guidance scale, loss weight, resolutions) are hand-chosen. There are no invented physical entities. The main unstated assumptions concern the transferability of pretrained components and the parity of baseline evaluations.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of progressive iterations = 4
    Chosen from Table 5 as the best FID/PSNR tradeoff; the progressive refinement claim is coupled to this hand-picked value.
  • Classifier-free guidance scale = 2.0
    Used for DDIM sampling; a standard value, not justified from data in the paper.
  • LPIPS loss weight lambda = 0.1
    Set for all experiments; balances L2 and perceptual loss in Eq. 2.
  • Tri-plane resolution = 256
    Design choice; the ablation in Table 7 shows quality improves with resolution, so 256 is a manually selected operating point.
  • Low-resolution volume dimensions = 32^3
    Coarse volume size selected as a memory/quality tradeoff; the ablation in Table 3 supports volume features over tri-plane features at this resolution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Accurate input and target camera poses are known for every dataset.
    The method projects features and renders via Eq. 1 using camera poses; all experiments assume known poses.
  • domain assumption Pretrained backbones (ResNet34/DINOv2, Zero123, CLIP) provide transferable priors.
    The reconstructor uses a pretrained feature extractor and the diffusion model is initialized from Zero123; performance depends on these external priors.
  • domain assumption Baselines are evaluated in a comparable training setup.
    For GSO, OpenLRM and Splatter Image are compared without stating their training data or fine-tuning, so the comparisons implicitly assume distribution parity.
  • domain assumption Benchmark protocols from prior work are adopted without re-verification.
    The SRN-Car evaluation follows PixelNeRF's split; CO3D and GSO metrics use the accepted protocols.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LiftRefine: Progressively Refined View Synthesis from 3D Lifting with Volume-Triplane Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QT2USPFL

@misc{pith2026241214464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LiftRefine: Progressively Refined View Synthesis from 3D Lifting with Volume-Triplane Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QT2USPFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14464}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a new view synthesis method via synthesizing a 3D neural field from both single or few-view input images. To address the ill-posed nature of the image-to-3D generation problem, we devise a two-stage method that involves a reconstruction model and a diffusion model for view synthesis. Our reconstruction model first lifts one or more input images to the 3D space from a volume as the coarse-scale 3D representation followed by a tri-plane as the fine-scale 3D representation. To mitigate the ambiguity in occluded regions, our diffusion model then hallucinates missing details in the rendered images from tri-planes. We then introduce a new progressive refinement technique that iteratively applies the reconstruction and diffusion model to gradually synthesize novel views, boosting the overall quality of the 3D representations and their rendering. Empirical evaluation demonstrates the superiority of our method over state-of-the-art methods on the synthetic SRN-Car dataset, the in-the-wild CO3D dataset, and large-scale Objaverse dataset while achieving both sampling efficacy and multi-view consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our novel view synthesis addresses both single-view and few-view setting with high-quality reconstruction and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our Stage 1 involves a reconstruction model to lift the input to 3D representations. Our model supports both single-view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our Stage 2 involves a conditional rendering diffu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Progressive inference. Our method reconstructs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on CO3D Dataset. 1-view PSNR↑ SSIM↑ LPIPS↓ FID↓ SparseFusion 16.45 0.652 0.278 46.5 ViewsetDiffusion 18.41 0.684 0.280 99.6 Ours (Det) 20.38 0.747 0.204 73.4 Ours (Diff) 20.10 0.744 0.195 39.6 3-view PSNR↑ SSIM↑ LPIPS↓ FID↓ SparseFusion 21.48 0.773 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparision with SyncDreamer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The tri-plane decoder architecture takes a feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results on SRN-Cars. Triplane resolution 0 512 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The effect of coarse and fine resolution of the 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative results of small, non-centric sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative results on Shapenet SRN-Cars. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sample diversity on CO3D dataset. Our diffusion model generates various feasible target views, all of which are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative results of Hydrant in CO3D dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Qualitative results of Teddybear in CO3D dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Qualitative results of Vase in CO3D dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Qualitative results of Plant in CO3D dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Single-view reconstruction results on GSO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: 2-views reconstruction results on GSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Sampling images from diffusion model on GSO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    J.; and Guerrero, P

    Anciukevicius, T.; Xu, Z.; Fisher, M.; Henderson, P.; Bilen, H.; Mitra, N. J.; and Guerrero, P. 2022. RenderDiffusion : Image Diffusion for 3D Reconstruction, Inpainting and Generation. arXiv

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    R.; Nagano, K.; Chan, M

    Chan, E. R.; Nagano, K.; Chan, M. A.; Bergman, A. W.; Park, J. J.; Levy, A.; Aittala, M.; Mello, S. D.; Karras, T.; and Wetzstein, G. 2023. GeNVS : Generative Novel View Synthesis with 3D -Aware Diffusion Models. In arXiv

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Chen, A.; Xu, H.; Esposito, S.; Tang, S.; and Geiger, A. 2024. LaRa: Efficient Large-Baseline Radiance Fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chen, A.; Xu, Z.; Zhao, F.; Zhang, X.; Xiang, F.; Yu, J.; and Su, H. 2021. Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo. In ICCV

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Chen, H.; Gu, J.; Chen, A.; Tian, W.; Tu, Z.; Liu, L.; and Su, H. 2023. Single-Stage Diffusion NeRF: A Unified Approach to 3D Generation and Reconstruction. In ICCV

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Deitke, M.; Schwenk, D.; Salvador, J.; Weihs, L.; Michel, O.; VanderBilt, E.; Schmidt, L.; Ehsani, K.; Kembhavi, A.; and Farhadi, A. 2022. Objaverse: A Universe of Annotated 3D Objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08051

    arXiv 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    G.; Kinman, B.; Reymann, K

    Francis, A. G.; Kinman, B.; Reymann, K. A.; Downs, L.; Koenig, N.; Hickman, R. M.; McHugh, T. B.; and Vanhoucke, V. O., eds. 2022. Google Scanned Objects: A High-Quality Dataset of 3D Scanned Household Items

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gu, J.; Trevithick, A.; Lin, K.-E.; Susskind, J.; Theobalt, C.; Liu, L.; and Ramamoorthi, R. 2023. NerfDiff: Single-image View Synthesis with NeRF-guided Distillation from 3D-aware Diffusion. In ICML

    2023

  3. [11]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. CVPR

    2016

  4. [12]

    He, Z.; and Wang, T. 2023. OpenLRM: Open-Source Large Reconstruction Models. https://github.com/3DTopia/OpenLRM

    2023

  5. [13]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. CVPR

    2020

  6. [14]

    Hong, Y.; Zhang, K.; Gu, J.; Bi, S.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, D.; Liu, F.; Sunkavalli, K.; Bui, T.; and Tan, H. 2024. LRM: Large Reconstruction Model for Single Image to 3D

    2024

  7. [15]

    Karnewar, A.; Vedaldi, A.; Novotny, D.; and Mitra, N. 2023. HoloDiffusion: Training a 3D Diffusion Model using 2D Images. In CVPR

    2023

  8. [16]

    W.; Brown, B.; Yin, K.; Kreis, K.; Schwarz, K.; Li, D.; Rombach, R.; Torralba, A.; and Fidler, S

    Kim, S. W.; Brown, B.; Yin, K.; Kreis, K.; Schwarz, K.; Li, D.; Rombach, R.; Torralba, A.; and Fidler, S. 2023. NeuralField-LDM: Scene Generation with Hierarchical Latent Diffusion Models. In CVPR

    2023

  9. [17]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2017. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. arXiv:1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lin, K.-E.; Yen-Chen, L.; Lai, W.-S.; Lin, T.-Y.; Shih, Y.-C.; and Ramamoorthi, R. 2023. Vision Transformer for NeRF-Based View Synthesis from a Single Input Image. In WACV

    2023

  11. [19]

    Liu, A.; Tucker, R.; Jampani, V.; Makadia, A.; Snavely, N.; and Kanazawa, A. 2021. Infinite Nature: Perpetual View Generation of Natural Scenes from a Single Image. In ICCV

    2021

  12. [20]

    V.; Tokmakov, P.; Zakharov, S.; and Vondrick, C

    Liu, R.; Wu, R.; Hoorick, B. V.; Tokmakov, P.; Zakharov, S.; and Vondrick, C. 2023 a . Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot One Image to 3D Object. arXiv:2303.11328

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Liu, Y.; Lin, C.; Zeng, Z.; Long, X.; Liu, L.; Komura, T.; and Wang, W. 2023 b . SyncDreamer: Learning to Generate Multiview-consistent Images from a Single-view Image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03453

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Long, X.; Guo, Y.-C.; Lin, C.; Liu, Y.; Dou, Z.; Liu, L.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, S.-H.; Habermann, M.; Theobalt, C.; et al. 2024. Wonder3D: Single Image to 3D using Cross-Domain Diffusion. In CVPR

    2024

  15. [23]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2020. NeRF: Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis. In ECCV

    2020

  16. [24]

    T.; and Mildenhall, B

    Poole, B.; Jain, A.; Barron, J. T.; and Mildenhall, B. 2022. DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion. arXiv

    2022

  17. [25]

    Reizenstein, J.; Shapovalov, R.; Henzler, P.; Sbordone, L.; Labatut, P.; and Novotny, D. 2021. Common Objects in 3D: Large-Scale Learning and Evaluation of Real-life 3D Category Reconstruction. In ICCV

    2021

  18. [26]

    Ren, X.; and Wang, X. 2022. Look Outside the Room: Synthesizing A Consistent Long-Term 3D Scene Video from A Single Image. In CVPR

    2022

  19. [27]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2021. High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. arXiv:2112.10752

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Rombach, R.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2021. Geometry-Free View Synthesis: Transformers and no 3D Priors. arXiv:2104.07652

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Schuhmann, C.; Beaumont, R.; Vencu, R.; Gordon, C.; Wightman, R.; Cherti, M.; Coombes, T.; Katta, A.; Mullis, C.; Wortsman, M.; Schramowski, P.; Kundurthy, S.; Crowson, K.; Schmidt, L.; Kaczmarczyk, R.; and Jitsev, J. 2022. LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training ne...

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Shi, Y.; Wang, P.; Ye, J.; Mai, L.; Li, K.; and Yang, X. 2024. MVDream: Multi-view Diffusion for 3D Generation. In ICLR

    2024

  23. [31]

    Sitzmann, V.; Zollh \"o fer, M.; and Wetzstein, G. 2019. Scene Representation Networks: Continuous 3D-Structure-Aware Neural Scene Representations. In NeurIPS

    2019

  24. [32]

    Song, J.; Meng, C.; and Ermon, S. 2022. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models. arXiv:2010.02502

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Szymanowicz, S.; Rupprecht, C.; and Vedaldi, A. 2023 a . Splatter Image: Ultra-Fast Single-View 3D Reconstruction. In arXiv

    2023

  26. [34]

    Szymanowicz, S.; Rupprecht, C.; and Vedaldi, A. 2023 b . Viewset Diffusion: (0-)Image-Conditioned 3D Generative Models from 2D data. In ICCV

    2023

  27. [35]

    B.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W

    Tewari, A.; Yin, T.; Cazenavette, G.; Rezchikov, S.; Tenenbaum, J. B.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W. T.; and Sitzmann, V. 2023. Diffusion with Forward Models: Solving Stochastic Inverse Problems Without Direct Supervision. In arXiv

    2023

  28. [36]

    Tseng, H.-Y.; Li, Q.; Kim, C.; Alsisan, S.; Huang, J.-B.; and Kopf, J. 2023. Consistent View Synthesis with Pose-Guided Diffusion Models. In CVPR

    2023

  29. [37]

    Tucker, R.; and Snavely, N. 2020. Single-view View Synthesis with Multiplane Images. In CVPR

    2020

  30. [38]

    Wang, P.; and Shi, Y. 2023. ImageDream: Image-Prompt Multi-view Diffusion for 3D Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02201

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    T.; Martin-Brualla, R.; Snavely, N.; and Funkhouser, T

    Wang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Genova, K.; Srinivasan, P.; Zhou, H.; Barron, J. T.; Martin-Brualla, R.; Snavely, N.; and Funkhouser, T. 2021. IBRNet: Learning Multi-View Image-Based Rendering. In CVPR

    2021

  32. [40]

    Wang, Z.; Lu, C.; Wang, Y.; Bao, F.; Li, C.; Su, H.; and Zhu, J. 2023. ProlificDreamer: High-Fidelity and Diverse Text-to-3D Generation with Variational Score Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16213

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Watson, D.; Chan, W.; Martin-Brualla, R.; Ho, J.; Tagliasacchi, A.; and Norouzi, M. 2022. Novel View Synthesis with Diffusion Models. arXiv:2210.04628

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Xu, Y.; Tan, H.; Luan, F.; Bi, S.; Wang, P.; Li, J.; Shi, Z.; Sunkavalli, K.; Wetzstein, G.; Xu, Z.; and Zhang, K. 2024. DMV3D: Denoising Multi-View Diffusion using 3D Large Reconstruction Model. In ICLR

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yu, A.; Ye, V.; Tancik, M.; and Kanazawa, A. 2021. pixelNeRF : Neural Radiance Fields from One or Few Images. In CVPR

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zhou, Z.; and Tulsiani, S. 2023. SparseFusion: Distilling View-conditioned Diffusion for 3D Reconstruction. In CVPR

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.