Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

BloomScene: Lightweight Structured 3D Gaussian Splatting for Crossmodal Scene Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BloomScene claims that adding hierarchical depth-prior regularization and hash-grid context compression makes text- and image-driven 3D scene generation both higher quality and far lighter in storage.

desk verdict BloomScene is a credible engineering integration of progressive generation, depth regularization, and hash-grid compression, but the headline size/quality advantage is not yet proven because the compression comparison is not apples-to-apples and the quality scores lack error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10462 v2 pith:5NZVYFUH submitted 2025-01-15 cs.CV cs.AIcs.GRcs.LG

Xiaolu Hou , Mingcheng Li , Dingkang Yang , Jiawei Chen , Ziyun Qian , Xiao Zhao , Yue Jiang , Jinjie Wei
show 2 more authors
Qingyao Xu Lihua Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.GRcs.LG
keywords 3DGaussiansplattingtext-to-3Dscenegenerationprogressivedepthpriorregularization3DGScompressionhashgridcrossmodalmonocularestimation
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 tries to establish that high-quality 3D scenes generated from text or images can be made both more geometrically consistent and dramatically smaller than those produced by previous progressive generation methods. It proposes BloomScene, a pipeline in which a text-to-image diffusion model and a monocular depth estimator progressively build a point cloud, 3D Gaussian Splatting renders the scene, and two additions do the heavy lifting: a hierarchical depth-prior regularization that constrains rendered depth at pixel, distribution, and smoothness levels, and a structured context-guided compression that models anchor attributes with a hash grid to cut redundancy. If the claims hold, complex scenes can be generated with less than 100 MB of storage while scoring higher on reference-free image quality and text-alignment metrics than current baselines. The paper reports the best scores across CLIP-Score, CLIP-IQA Quality/Colorful/Sharp, BRISQUE, and NIQE, with a model size 5.8x smaller than LucidDreamer and 4.3x smaller than Invisible-stitch.

What carries the argument

The machinery is 3D Gaussian Splatting, a radiance-field scene representation made of many small 3D Gaussians rendered by alpha blending, augmented by two loss and compression blocks. In DPR, the depth prior from a monocular estimator enters through an alignment step and is enforced by three losses: a gradient-aware Huber pixel loss that down-weights image edges, a CMD distribution loss over central moments, and a bilateral-filter smoothness loss. In SCC, anchors carrying location, feature, scaling, and offset attributes are quantized with dynamic Gaussian noise scaled by an MLP-predicted factor, with the scaling derived from hash-grid-interpolated context features; a Gaussian entropy model estimates bit cost, and the hash grid lets nearby anchors share context and removes structural redundancy. The final objective combines the RGB photometric loss with the DPR and SCC losses.

What would settle it

For a prompt with a known 3D scene, render novel views with and without DPR and compare the rendered depth maps to ground-truth depth at the inpainted seams; if the DPR model's mean absolute depth error is not lower in those regions, the geometric-consistency claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two proposed mechanisms together solve the two failure modes of 3DGS-based progressive scene generation: lack of geometric regularization and excessive storage. The depth prior-based regularization (DPR) couples 3DGS-rendered depth to an aligned monocular depth estimate through a gradient-aware Huber pixel loss, a central-moment discrepancy (CMD) distribution loss, and a bilateral-filter smoothness loss, reducing artifacts and distortions. The structured context-guided compression (SCC) replaces independent anchor attributes with a structured hash grid that models mutual information between anchor features and grid features, enabling dynamic quantization and entropy coding that bring model size down to 99.22 MB from 569.33 MB without SCC. The paper claims that this combination simultaneously improves fidelity and geometric consistency while cutting storage dramatically relative to previous 3DGS-based scene generation.

Load-bearing premise

The aligned monocular depth maps, including regions filled by inpainting, are treated as reliable ground truth for geometry, so if the depth alignment drifts the regularization will push the scene toward wrong depths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Text-to-3D scene generation can be delivered as a lightweight asset: BloomScene scenes occupy 99.22 MB versus 571.63 MB for LucidDreamer, so generated scenes can be stored and streamed more cheaply.
  • Adding depth-prior regularization at pixel, distribution, and smoothness levels reduces geometric artifacts and improves reference-free image quality scores compared to photometric-only training.
  • Using a structured hash grid to model anchor context makes anchor-based 3DGS compression effective enough that removing SCC increases model size from 99.22 MB to 569.33 MB.
  • The progressive pipeline works from either text or image input, so an existing image can seed a full 3D scene through an image-to-text captioning step.
  • Because the DPR losses are added to the standard 3DGS objective, they can be applied to any progressive 3DGS generator that has access to a monocular depth prior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same hash-grid context compression could be applied to captured, non-generated 3DGS scenes, since nothing in the SCC design depends on the progressive generation framework.
  • Since all reported quality metrics are 2D and reference-free, a stricter test would compare rendered geometry against multi-view ground truth; the DPR losses should reduce depth error at inpainted seams if the geometric-consistency claim is correct.
  • The size reduction relative to LucidDreamer combines anchor-based structure from Scaffold-GS with hash-grid entropy coding from SCC, so the compression gain may transfer to other anchor-based 3DGS compressors even without DPR.
  • A testable extension is to measure whether DPR trades away high-frequency texture detail for geometric stability by evaluating novel-view PSNR or LPIPS on scenes with known ground truth.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BloomScene, a 3D Gaussian splatting framework for text/image-driven progressive 3D scene generation. It contributes (i) a progressive scene generation pipeline that constructs point clouds from an inpainting model and monocular depth, (ii) a hierarchical depth prior-based regularization (DPR) mechanism with pixel-level, distribution-level, and smoothness-level losses, and (iii) a structured context-guided compression (SCC) mechanism using a hash grid and entropy coding to reduce storage. The method is evaluated on nine prompts against Text2Room, SceneScape, Invisible-stitch, WonderJourney, and LucidDreamer, reporting the best scores on six no-reference metrics and a model size of 99.22 MB, about 5.8x smaller than LucidDreamer. Ablations show that each component contributes, and code is released.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated, BloomScene would be a useful step toward practical 3D scene generation: the combination of depth regularization with structured compression is timely, and releasing code is a strength. However, the headline lightweight and quality advantages are not yet established because the size comparison is confounded with the added compressor and because the metric differences lack uncertainty quantification. The core ideas are plausible and the paper is generally clearly organized; with stronger evidence it could be a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments, Table 1 and Table 2] The storage comparison is not apples-to-apples. BloomScene's 99.22 MB includes the entropy-coded SCC representation, while the 3DGS baselines (LucidDreamer 571.63 MB, Invisible-stitch 430.55 MB) are reported as uncompressed outputs; the w/o SCC ablation is 569.33 MB, nearly identical to LucidDreamer. No standard 3DGS compression method (e.g., Compact3D, LightGaussian, or the cited HAC) is applied to the baselines, so the reported 5.8x/4.3x reduction may simply reflect the addition of a compressor rather than an intrinsic property of the generated scenes. The claim that the generated scenes are lighter must therefore be supported by comparisons against compressed baselines using the same or matched compression pipeline.
  2. [Implementation Details and Table 1] The quantitative quality comparison reports point estimates without variance, even though the Implementation Details state that results are averaged over five seeds and nine prompts. Several differences are small (e.g., CLIP-Score 31.78 vs 31.19; CLIP-IQA Quality 0.70 vs 0.66), and because each method generates a different scene from the same prompt, the rendered views are not pixel-aligned. Without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests, the claimed superiority on quality metrics is not statistically established.
  3. [Point Cloud Construction, Eq. (4) and Eqs. (7)-(10)] The DPR loss treats the aligned monocular depth D_a_i as pseudo ground truth, including in inpainted regions where no true geometry exists. The alignment function fa minimizes differences only in overlapping regions; if ZoeDepth's predictions drift in the inpainted areas, the regularization will enforce incorrect depths during 3DGS optimization. The paper does not quantify alignment error, show failure cases, or provide evidence that the alignment remains consistent across all N views. This is load-bearing for the geometric-consistency claim and should be addressed with an analysis or additional validation.
  4. [Hierarchical Depth Prior-based Regularization, Eq. (7)] The motivation for the gradient-aware Huber loss states that the goal is to 'apply more attention to the edges' because edge depths are inaccurate, but the weight grgb = exp(-∇) assigns smaller weights to high-gradient pixels, and the text confirms that 'Image edges with larger gradients are dynamically assigned smaller learning weights.' This contradicts the stated intention. Please clarify whether edges are intended to be emphasized or downweighted, and align the formula with the text.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The 'color kernel' Gc is evaluated on depth values (||D_p - D_q||) rather than on RGB color values; either the formula or the name should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The symbol k in the semi-soft rounding operation is not defined; please specify its meaning, value, and range.
  3. [Text following Eq. (11)] The phrase 'the loss of DRP' should read 'the loss of DPR' to match the abbreviation used elsewhere.
  4. [Implementation Details] LLaVa is cited as (Contributors 2023), but the corresponding reference is for XTuner; the citation should be replaced with the correct LLaVA reference or the text adjusted.
  5. [Structured Context-guided Compression] The paper alternates between 'structured hash feature mesh' and 'structured hash grid' to describe the same mechanism; please unify the terminology.
  6. [Table 1] WonderJourney's model size is listed as '−' without explanation; please state why the size is omitted so the comparison is transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation chain is self-contained and evaluated against external baselines.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce any central claim to its own inputs. The DPR loss (Eqs. 7-11) regularizes 3DGS-rendered depth with a monocular depth prior; this is a training-time pseudo-labeling objective, not a prediction that is forced by construction from the evaluation metrics. The final objective (Eq. 17) combines the external 3DGS photometric loss with the DPR and SCC losses, each defined from external quantities or structural properties of the Gaussian representation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The self-citation to Hou et al. (SceneWeaver) appears only in contextual related-work discussion and is not load-bearing for any equation or result. The compression contribution follows Scaffold-GS and HAC, which are external works, and the size reduction is produced by an explicit entropy-coding mechanism rather than by redefining the baseline. A benchmark-fairness concern exists: Table 1 compares BloomScene's entropy-coded size against uncompressed baseline sizes, and quality scores are point averages without variance; however, that is a validity and statistical-evidence issue, not circularity. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for the purposes of this circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is a system built from established components: the anchor representation is from Scaffold-GS, the hash-grid context modeling and Gaussian entropy assumption are from HAC, and the progressive generation loop follows LucidDreamer. The paper's own additions are hand-tuned loss weights, quantization parameters, and a modified camera path. None of these constitute new physical entities, and the main load-bearing external assumptions are the reliability of monocular depth and the validity of the 2D evaluation metrics.

free parameters (7)
  • DPR loss weights λ1, λ2, λ3 = 0.7, 0.1, 1.0
    Set in Eq. (11) to balance pixel, distribution, and smoothness depth terms; chosen by hand and directly affect the claimed geometric consistency improvement.
  • SCC loss weights λ4, λ5 = 1e-2, 2e-3
    Set in Eq. (16) to balance volume regularization and entropy loss; hand-picked.
  • Quantization noise scales η_i = {2.5e-1, 2.5e-4, 5e-2}
    Per-attribute-type base scales in Eq. (12) for feature, scaling, and offset quantization; hand-picked, controlling the compression-quality trade-off.
  • Semi-soft rounding temperature τ = 1
    Used in Eq. (13); chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • Anchor feature dimension and offset count (Da, K) = 50, 10
    Architecture choices for the anchor attributes; no ablation is shown for these values.
  • Camera rotation increment = 0.63 rad (approximately 36 degrees)
    Set in Implementation Details for the progressive camera path; no sensitivity study.
  • Huber threshold factor δ = 0.2 max||D - D̂||1
    Adaptive but the 0.2 factor is chosen by hand in Eq. (7).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Anchor-based Gaussian representation from Scaffold-GS captures spatial correlation among Gaussians
    Invoked in 'Description of anchors'; the paper relies on the anchor structure and its MLP-predicted Gaussian attributes without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption Hash-grid context features fh, modeled with trilinear interpolation, capture mutual information with anchor features
    Adopted from HAC (Chen et al. 2025) in 'Anchor feature modeling'; the paper assumes this mutual information reduces bitrate.
  • domain assumption Anchor attributes follow Gaussian distributions
    Stated in 'Anchor feature modeling' citing Chen et al. 2025; used in Eq. (14) to compute p(f̂i).
  • domain assumption Monocular depth estimates from ZoeDepth are accurate and scale-consistent enough to serve as pseudo ground truth after alignment
    Enter at Eq. (4) and DPR losses (Eqs. 7, 9, 10); no verification of scale consistency with 3DGS coordinates is provided.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion inpainting produces coherent scene continuations across camera poses
    Core to the progressive PSG framework in 'Point Cloud Construction'; the paper does not quantify inpainting failure cases.
  • domain assumption 2D no-reference metrics (BRISQUE, NIQE) and CLIP scores are valid proxies for 3D scene quality
    Used for all quantitative comparisons in Table 1 and 2; the paper explicitly rejects reference-based metrics but does not validate the chosen proxies against geometric quality or human judgment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BloomScene: Lightweight Structured 3D Gaussian Splatting for Crossmodal Scene Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NZVYFUH

@misc{pith2026250110462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BloomScene: Lightweight Structured 3D Gaussian Splatting for Crossmodal Scene Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NZVYFUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10462}
}
read the original abstract

With the widespread use of virtual reality applications, 3D scene generation has become a new challenging research frontier. 3D scenes have highly complex structures and need to ensure that the output is dense, coherent, and contains all necessary structures. Many current 3D scene generation methods rely on pre-trained text-to-image diffusion models and monocular depth estimators. However, the generated scenes occupy large amounts of storage space and often lack effective regularisation methods, leading to geometric distortions. To this end, we propose BloomScene, a lightweight structured 3D Gaussian splatting for crossmodal scene generation, which creates diverse and high-quality 3D scenes from text or image inputs. Specifically, a crossmodal progressive scene generation framework is proposed to generate coherent scenes utilizing incremental point cloud reconstruction and 3D Gaussian splatting. Additionally, we propose a hierarchical depth prior-based regularization mechanism that utilizes multi-level constraints on depth accuracy and smoothness to enhance the realism and continuity of the generated scenes. Ultimately, we propose a structured context-guided compression mechanism that exploits structured hash grids to model the context of unorganized anchor attributes, which significantly eliminates structural redundancy and reduces storage overhead. Comprehensive experiments across multiple scenes demonstrate the significant potential and advantages of our framework compared with several baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall framework of the proposed BloomScene. BloomScene utilizes the proposed crossmodal Progressive Scene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative comparison results. The input text prompt is: “A cozy living room in Christmas” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison results. The input text prompt is: “A small cabin on top of a snowy mountain, Disney style” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of ablation results. following points: (i) Overall, our method generates much higher quality 3D scenes with significantly reduced storage overhead, significantly outperforming the baseline models. (ii) The storage overhead of our generated scenes is 4.3x …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 14 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]

    T.; Mildenhall, B.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P

    Barron, J. T.; Mildenhall, B.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P. P.; and Hedman, P. 2022. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5470--5479

    2022

  4. [4]

    M.; Alliez, P.; Levine, J

    Berger, M.; Tagliasacchi, A.; Seversky, L. M.; Alliez, P.; Levine, J. A.; Sharf, A.; and Silva, C. T. 2014. State of the art in surface reconstruction from point clouds. In 35th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics, Eurographics 2014-State of the Art Reports. The Eurographics Association

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    F.; Birkl, R.; Wofk, D.; Wonka, P.; and M \"u ller, M

    Bhat, S. F.; Birkl, R.; Wofk, D.; Wonka, P.; and M \"u ller, M. 2023. Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Chen, G.; and Wang, W. 2024. A survey on 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03890

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, Y.; Wu, Q.; Lin, W.; Harandi, M.; and Cai, J. 2025. Hac: Hash-grid assisted context for 3d gaussian splatting compression. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 422--438. Springer

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Chung, J.; Lee, S.; Nam, H.; Lee, J.; and Lee, K. M. 2023. Luciddreamer: Domain-free generation of 3d gaussian splatting scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13384

    arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Contributors, X. 2023. XTuner: A Toolkit for Efficiently Fine-tuning LLM. https://github.com/InternLM/xtuner

    2023

  2. [10]

    Engstler, P.; Vedaldi, A.; Laina, I.; and Rupprecht, C. 2024. Invisible Stitch: Generating Smooth 3D Scenes with Depth Inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19758

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fan, Z.; Wang, K.; Wen, K.; Zhu, Z.; Xu, D.; and Wang, Z. 2023. Lightgaussian: Unbounded 3d gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ fps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17245

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fridman, R.; Abecasis, A.; Kasten, Y.; and Dekel, T. 2024. Scenescape: Text-driven consistent scene generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  5. [13]

    L.; and Choi, Y

    Hessel, J.; Holtzman, A.; Forbes, M.; Bras, R. L.; and Choi, Y. 2021. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08718

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H \"o llein, L.; Cao, A.; Owens, A.; Johnson, J.; and Nie ner, M. 2023. Text2room: Extracting textured 3d meshes from 2d text-to-image models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 7909--7920

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hou, X.; Li, M.; Chen, J.; Yang, D.; Qian, Z.; and Zhang, L. 2024. SceneWeaver: Text-Driven Scene Generation with Geometry-aware Gaussian Splatting. In The 16th Asian Conference on Machine Learning (Conference Track)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Kerbl, B.; Kopanas, G.; Leimk \"u hler, T.; and Drettakis, G. 2023. 3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4): 139--1

    2023

  9. [17]

    Lee, H.-H.; and Chang, A. X. 2022. Understanding pure clip guidance for voxel grid nerf models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15172

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Li, H.; Shi, H.; Zhang, W.; Wu, W.; Liao, Y.; Wang, L.; Lee, L.-h.; and Zhou, P. 2024. DreamScene: 3D Gaussian-based Text-to-3D Scene Generation via Formation Pattern Sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03575

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lin, C.-H.; Gao, J.; Tang, L.; Takikawa, T.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X.; Kreis, K.; Fidler, S.; Liu, M.-Y.; and Lin, T.-Y. 2023. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 300--309

    2023

  12. [20]

    Lu, T.; Yu, M.; Xu, L.; Xiangli, Y.; Wang, L.; Lin, D.; and Dai, B. 2024. Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20654--20664

    2024

  13. [21]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2021. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1): 99--106

    2021

  14. [22]

    K.; and Bovik, A

    Mittal, A.; Moorthy, A. K.; and Bovik, A. C. 2012. No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 21(12): 4695--4708

    2012

  15. [23]

    completely blind

    Mittal, A.; Soundararajan, R.; and Bovik, A. C. 2012. Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal processing letters, 20(3): 209--212

    2012

  16. [24]

    Mohammad Khalid, N.; Xie, T.; Belilovsky, E.; and Popa, T. 2022. Clip-mesh: Generating textured meshes from text using pretrained image-text models. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 conference papers, 1--8

    2022

  17. [25]

    M \"u ller, T.; Evans, A.; Schied, C.; and Keller, A. 2022. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4): 1--15

    2022

  18. [26]

    Munkberg, J.; Hasselgren, J.; Shen, T.; Gao, J.; Chen, W.; Evans, A.; M \"u ller, T.; and Fidler, S. 2022. Extracting triangular 3d models, materials, and lighting from images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8280--8290

    2022

  19. [27]

    P.; Koohpayegani, S

    Navaneet, K.; Meibodi, K. P.; Koohpayegani, S. A.; and Pirsiavash, H. 2023. Compact3d: Compressing gaussian splat radiance field models with vector quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18159

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ouyang, H.; Heal, K.; Lombardi, S.; and Sun, T. 2023. Text2immersion: Generative immersive scene with 3d gaussians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09242

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T.; and Mildenhall, B

    Poole, B.; Jain, A.; Barron, J. T.; and Mildenhall, B. 2022. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, 8748--8763. PMLR

    2021

  23. [31]

    Ranftl, R.; Lasinger, K.; Hafner, D.; Schindler, K.; and Koltun, V. 2020. Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(3): 1623--1637

    2020

  24. [32]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  25. [33]

    L.; and Frahm, J.-M

    Schonberger, J. L.; and Frahm, J.-M. 2016. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4104--4113

    2016

  26. [34]

    M.; and Szeliski, R

    Snavely, N.; Seitz, S. M.; and Szeliski, R. 2006. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D. In ACM siggraph 2006 papers, 835--846

    2006

  27. [35]

    Tang, J.; Ren, J.; Zhou, H.; Liu, Z.; and Zeng, G. 2023. Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16653

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Tomasi, C.; and Manduchi, R. 1998. Bilateral filtering for gray and color images. In Sixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271), 839--846. IEEE

    1998

  29. [37]

    C.; and Loy, C

    Wang, J.; Chan, K. C.; and Loy, C. C. 2023. Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 2555--2563

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wang, Z.; Lu, C.; Wang, Y.; Bao, F.; Li, C.; Su, H.; and Zhu, J. 2024. Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  31. [39]

    T.; Cole, F.; Sun, D.; Snavely, N.; Wu, J.; et al

    Yu, H.-X.; Duan, H.; Hur, J.; Sargent, K.; Rubinstein, M.; Freeman, W. T.; Cole, F.; Sun, D.; Snavely, N.; Wu, J.; et al. 2024. Wonderjourney: Going from anywhere to everywhere. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6658--6667

    2024

  32. [40]

    Yuan, X.; Yang, H.; Zhao, Y.; and Huang, D. 2024. DreamScape: 3D Scene Creation via Gaussian Splatting joint Correlation Modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09227

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A.; Grubinger, T.; Lughofer, E.; Natschl \"a ger, T.; and Saminger-Platz, S

    Zellinger, W.; Moser, B. A.; Grubinger, T.; Lughofer, E.; Natschl \"a ger, T.; and Saminger-Platz, S. 2019. Robust unsupervised domain adaptation for neural networks via moment alignment. Information Sciences, 483: 174--191

    2019

  34. [42]

    Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Wan, Z.; Wang, C.; and Liao, J. 2024. Text2nerf: Text-driven 3d scene generation with neural radiance fields. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

    2024

  35. [43]

    A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O

    Zhang, R.; Isola, P.; Efros, A. A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 586--595

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.