Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Make Your MoVe: Make Your 3D Contents by Adapting Multi-View Diffusion Models to External Editing

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tuning-free plug-in lets 2D edits flow into 3D generation without breaking geometry.

desk verdict A practical tuning-free editing adapter with a clever normal-latent trick, but the headline claim is currently propped up by hyperparameters tuned on the evaluation set. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07700 v1 pith:S4ORKTSF submitted 2025-08-11 cs.CV

Weitao Wang , Haoran Xu , Jun Meng , Haoqian Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dcontentgenerationmulti-viewdiffusionappearanceeditinggeometrypreservationtuning-freeplug-and-playnormalmapsinjectionswitcher
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

Most 2D editing tools (style transfer, instruction edits, relighting) alter an image in ways that destroy the geometric information a multi-view diffusion model needs to reconstruct a 3D object. This paper shows that running the original and the edited image through the same multi-view diffusion model in parallel, and forcing the edited branch to keep the original branch's normal maps, preserves geometry while transferring the appearance change. An injection switcher that periodically blends original and edited normal latents in cross-domain attention keeps the edited color views aligned with those normals. The result is a plug-and-play, training-free method that improves multi-view consistency and mesh quality across two multi-view diffusion models and four editing tools.

What carries the argument

A parallel dual-pipeline feeds the original image and the edited image into the same multi-view diffusion model during one denoising pass. The geometry preservation module replaces the edited pipeline's normal latents with the original pipeline's at every step. The injection switcher then interpolates the normal latents in the cross-domain self-attention as $[Q,K,V]_{cd} = \lambda [Q,K,V]_{cn} + (1-\lambda)[Q,K,V]_{cn'}$, with default $\lambda=0.5$ until $t_s=60\%$ of steps, so the edited color latents stay aligned with the original normals' polishing direction while the edit remains visible in color.

What would settle it

Apply MyMV to an edit that explicitly changes object shape, e.g., InstructPix2Pix with the prompt 'make it a cube'. If the method preserves geometry as claimed, the output mesh must match the original object's shape; if the mesh instead reflects the edited shape, or if the color views visibly drift from the preserved normals (texture smearing in the mesh), the claim fails. A sharper statistical test: run many edits of each type and check whether MVReward and CLIP similarity improve over naive combination on every edit type; if any edit type consistently regresses, the 'consistently improves' c

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

External 2D edits can be adapted to multi-view diffusion models at inference time by supervising the edited pipeline with the original pipeline's normal latents. Because normal maps carry geometric structure, replacing the edited normal latents with the original ones at each denoising step preserves shape while the color latents still carry the edit. An injection switcher fixes the resulting color-normal misalignment: for the first 60% of steps it blends original and edited normal latents (λ=0.5) in cross-domain self-attention, then lets the remaining steps align color and normals. On Wonder3D and Era3D with StyleTR2, StyleShot, InstructPix2Pix, and IC-Light, MyMV consistently improves MVRew

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that normal maps from the original pipeline are the dominant carrier of 3D geometry and that a scalar blend in cross-domain self-attention is enough to keep the edited color views aligned with those normals; if an edit makes either assumption fail, geometry preservation or color-normal alignment breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any 2D appearance edit — style transfer, prompt instruction, relighting — can be turned into a view-consistent 3D edit by plugging MyMV between the editing tool and a multi-view diffusion model, with no retraining and only seconds of added inference time.
  • The improvement holds across both tested multi-view diffusion models (Wonder3D, Era3D) and all four tested editing tools, so the method is a general wrapper rather than a one-off fix.
  • The same injection-switcher mechanism transfers to other plug-and-play diffusion editing pipelines, such as AnyV2V video editing, where it reduces facial deformation and stray noise.
  • Because geometry is taken from the original pipeline's normals, the edited mesh retains the original object's shape even when the edit is aggressive enough to blur structure in the edited image.

Reading between the lines

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

  • (Editor's inference) The normal-latent 'geometry lock' is a general recipe: any multi-view diffusion model that outputs normal maps alongside color (e.g., Zero123++ or SV3D) could adopt the same replacement with no change to the method.
  • (Editor's inference) The switcher's success hints at a broader design principle for joint-modality diffusion: periodically anchoring one modality to a reference pipeline in cross-domain attention can keep two output modalities mutually consistent, a recipe that could apply to depth/RGB, albedo/shading, or other paired outputs.
  • (Editor's inference) A testable extension is to swap the 'geometry source' from the original image to a user-chosen normal map, enabling controllable geometry editing (e.g., importing shape from another object) while keeping the color edit, a use the paper does not explore.
  • (Editor's inference) The paper's comparison with Style3D uses published qualitative results because Style3D's code is closed; a re-implementation would let the claimed mesh-quality advantage be verified quantitatively.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Make Your MoVe (MyMV), a tuning-free, plug-and-play method for adapting multi-view diffusion models to external 2D image edits. Given an original image and its externally edited version, the method runs two parallel denoising pipelines sharing the same multi-view diffusion weights, replaces or interpolates the edited pipeline's normal latents with the original pipeline's normal latents (geometry preservation module), and adds an 'injection switcher' that alternates between original and edited normal features in cross-domain self-attention. The authors claim that this consistently improves multi-view consistency and mesh quality for edited 3D assets across Wonder3D/Era3D combined with StyleTR2, StyleShot, InstructPix2Pix, and IC-Light, compared to naive combinations and to Style3D. Quantitative results are reported via MVReward, CLIP Similarity, runtime, and a user study; ablations grid-search the hyperparameters λ and t_s.

Significance. If the central claim is validated, the method would be a practically valuable contribution: it offers a training-free, model-agnostic wrapper that preserves geometry while allowing appearance edits, with only modest runtime overhead. The idea of using normal latents as a geometry-preserving control signal in multi-view diffusion is intuitive and the qualitative results are visually compelling. The paper also explicitly frames a useful and often neglected baseline: comparing against naive [2D edit + image-to-3D] combinations rather than only against dedicated 3D editing methods. The extension to video editing via AnyV2V suggests broader applicability. However, the current evidence is not yet sufficient to establish the headline claim: the main quantitative metric is compromised by the evaluation/hyperparameter-selection overlap, the consistency metric does not improve in two of eight configurations, and parts of the evidence (mesh metrics, limitations) are deferred to appendices that are absent from the manuscript.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 4.3] The reported MVReward improvements are at risk of being selection artifacts. Sec. 4.3 states that 'a grid search is conducted on 100 samples from the MVReward standard test set' to choose λ and t_s, and Sec. 4.2 states that the quantitative evaluation 'evaluate[s] each sample in the MVReward standard image-to-3D test set.' As written, the tuning and evaluation sets overlap (or the evaluation set is a superset of the tuning set). The default λ=0.5 and t_s=60%T were therefore selected to maximize MVReward on the same distribution that Table 2 reports. The authors must either use a disjoint held-out set for final evaluation, or at minimum report MVReward for the full test set with and without tuning, along with confidence intervals. No sample counts or error bars are given for any Table 2 entry, so the magnitude of the differences (e.g., 0.71→0.82) cannot be assessed.
  2. [Table 2] The claim that MyMV 'consistently improves multi-view consistency' is not literally supported by Table 2. CLIP Similarity, the stated cross-view consistency metric, decreases for Wonder3D+StyleTR2 (0.78→0.77) and ties for Wonder3D+InstructPix2Pix (0.79→0.79). Even if the metric is secondary to MVReward, the wording 'consistently improves both multi-view consistency and mesh quality' is contradicted by the paper's own table. Moreover, without error bars or pairwise significance tests, small CLIP improvements in other rows (e.g., 0.75→0.77) may be noise. Please report variance, sample counts, and significance, or soften the claim to 'does not degrade consistency on most combinations.'
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (9)] The geometry preservation objective in Eq. (9) is not actually optimized; the method directly replaces or interpolates normal latents, so the objective holds by construction. Consequently, Eq. (9) and the surrounding minimization framing are misleading: the method enforces N_i(I_e) ≈ N_i(I_o) rather than learning to minimize a loss. This also means that geometry preservation itself is not measured but assumed. The paper should explicitly state that the normal-latent replacement is an inductive bias, not a solved optimization, and support the geometry-preservation claim with quantitative mesh metrics. The text promises 'quantitative mesh evaluation' in Appendix C, but Appendix C is not present in the submitted manuscript.
  4. [Appendix references] The manuscript repeatedly refers to appendix content that is not included: 'Appendix 3' for mathematical preliminaries (Sec. 3.1), implementation details and quantitative mesh evaluation (Sec. 4.1), and 'Appendix D' for social impact, ethical concerns, limitations, and future work (Sec. 5). As submitted, the paper is missing the limitation statement and the quantitative mesh evaluation. This is not a minor omission: the main text's claim about mesh quality is only supported by subjective inspection and a user study whose protocol (number of users, instructions, statistical analysis) is also unreported. Please include the appendices or move the essential material into the main text.
  5. [Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (11)–(12)] The notation for the injection switcher is unclear and internally inconsistent. Eq. (11) defines s as a one-dimensional vector that switches between original and edited normal latents, and the text says 'We define s to vary periodically with a hyperparameter λ.' Eq. (12), however, uses λ directly as the interpolation coefficient in cross-domain self-attention: [Q,K,V]_cd = λ[Q,K,V]_cn + (1−λ)[Q,K,V]_cn'. The relationship between s and λ, the exact periodic schedule, and whether the same λ appears in both places should be stated explicitly. Also, the grid search is described as searching over λ and t_s, but no range or step size is given; please report the search grid.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7] The axis labels in Figure 7 are partially garbled (e.g., '𝐭𝐬 w/ 𝛌=0.5' and '𝛌w/ 𝐭𝐬=60%' appear as fragments). Please redraw the figure with clear labels and captions.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The user study (Table 1) does not report the number of participants, the number of questions, or the inter-rater agreement. Since the win rates are central to the qualitative claims, these details should be provided.
  3. [Sec. 3.5] The video-editing extension (Figure 4) is shown only qualitatively. This is acceptable as a 'more applications' teaser, but the text should state explicitly that these results are anecdotal and not part of the main evaluation.
  4. [Global] Minor typos and notation issues: 'an 2D edited input' (Contributions), 'right* back' in Figure 1, and 'Wonder3D 256² and Era3D 512²' appear without clear units. Please proofread.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Quantitative claim is partly circular: the injection-switcher hyperparameters are tuned on the same MVReward test set later used to report the headline improvements.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.3 (Ablation Study) and Sec. 4.2 (Evaluation), Table 2]
    "A grid search is conducted on 100 samples from the MVReward standard test set, with the results visualized in Figure 7. ... We evaluate each sample in the MVReward standard image-to-3D test set and those test samples provided by Wonder3D and Era3D, with random editing."

    The default hyperparameters λ=0.5 and t_s=60%T were selected as the peak of the MVReward surface computed on 100 samples from the MVReward standard test set. Table 2 then reports MVReward improvements on the MVReward standard image-to-3D test set. As written, these are the same evaluation distribution, so the 8/8 MVReward improvements are not an independent, out-of-sample validation of the chosen hyperparameters; they are partly a selection artifact. No held-out split, cross-validation, or error bars are reported, so the claim 'consistently improves' is not statistically established.

full rationale

The paper's central design—forcing edited normal latents toward the original pipeline's normal latents—is an explicit construction (Eq. 9-10), not a hidden circularity: the authors state that they impose the match and then replace the latents. The real circularity concern is in the quantitative evaluation. λ and t_s are chosen by grid search on 100 samples from the MVReward standard test set, and the same MVReward standard test set is used for the quantitative comparison in Table 2. This makes the headline MVReward improvement partly a product of fitting the evaluation metric. The user study and qualitative results provide some independent support, and the method itself is tuning-free, but the paper's strongest quantitative claim is weakened by the lack of a held-out split. The MVReward metric is also the authors' own prior work (ref. [54]), which is not itself circular because it is a separately trained reward model, but it increases the need for clear separation between tuning and evaluation. CLIP similarity, the stated cross-view consistency metric, decreases for Wonder3D+StyleTR2 (0.78→0.77) and ties for Wonder3D+InstructPix2Pix (0.79→0.79), so 'consistently improves' is not literally supported by Table 2 even apart from the tuning issue. Overall, the derivation is not circular by definition, but the central empirical claim is partially circular because the reported metric was used as the tuning objective.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two tunable hyperparameters and several domain assumptions about normal maps and feature injection. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (lambda) = 0.5
    Interpolation weight for blending original and edited normal latents in the injection switcher; selected by grid search on 100 MVReward test samples.
  • t_s = 60% of total denoising steps
    Number of initial inference steps during which the switcher is active; selected by grid search on the same test set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Normal maps primarily encode geometric structure in multi-view diffusion models.
    Invoked in Sec 3.3 to justify replacing edited normals with original normals; cited to [24,29] but not independently validated for arbitrary external edits.
  • domain assumption External 2D editing tools introduce information loss that degrades multi-view geometry when edited images are fed directly to multi-view diffusion.
    Motivates the problem (Sec 1) and is supported by citations [17,25,32]; no direct measurement in this paper.
  • domain assumption Injecting latents from a parallel denoising pipeline into cross-domain self-attention preserves generation quality without fine-tuning.
    Borrowed from AnyV2V [21] and PnP methods; the paper assumes the same holds for multi-view diffusion with normal latents.
  • domain assumption The edited image preserves enough geometric correspondence with the original image for original normals to remain valid supervision.
    The paper restricts InstructPix2Pix edits to those not affecting geometry (Sec 4.1), implying this assumption is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Make Your MoVe: Make Your 3D Contents by Adapting Multi-View Diffusion Models to External Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4ORKTSF

@misc{pith2026250807700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Make Your MoVe: Make Your 3D Contents by Adapting Multi-View Diffusion Models to External Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4ORKTSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07700}
}
read the original abstract

As 3D generation techniques continue to flourish, the demand for generating personalized content is rapidly rising. Users increasingly seek to apply various editing methods to polish generated 3D content, aiming to enhance its color, style, and lighting without compromising the underlying geometry. However, most existing editing tools focus on the 2D domain, and directly feeding their results into 3D generation methods (like multi-view diffusion models) will introduce information loss, degrading the quality of the final 3D assets. In this paper, we propose a tuning-free, plug-and-play scheme that aligns edited assets with their original geometry in a single inference run. Central to our approach is a geometry preservation module that guides the edited multi-view generation with original input normal latents. Besides, an injection switcher is proposed to deliberately control the supervision extent of the original normals, ensuring the alignment between the edited color and normal views. Extensive experiments show that our method consistently improves both the multi-view consistency and mesh quality of edited 3D assets, across multiple combinations of multi-view diffusion models and editing methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anand Bhattad, James Soole, and David A Forsyth. 2024. Stylitgan: Image- based relighting via latent control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 4231–4240

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Zoubin Bi, Yixin Zeng, Chong Zeng, Fan Pei, Xiang Feng, Kun Zhou, and Hongzhi Wu. 2024. GS3: Efficient Relighting with Triple Gaussian Splatting. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers . 1–12

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. 2023. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 18392–18402

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Eric R Chan, Connor Z Lin, Matthew A Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas J Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, et al. 2022. Efficient geometry-aware 3d generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 16123–16133

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Zilong Chen, Yikai Wang, Feng Wang, Zhengyi Wang, and Huaping Liu

  6. [6]

    Jiwoo Chung, Sangeek Hyun, and Jae-Pil Heo. 2024. Style injection in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large-scale diffusion models for style transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8795–8805

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Yingying Deng, Fan Tang, Weiming Dong, Chongyang Ma, Xingjia Pan, Lei Wang, and Changsheng Xu. 2022. Stytr2: Image style transfer with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 11326–11336

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Martin Nicolas Everaert, Marco Bocchio, Sami Arpa, Sabine Süsstrunk, and Radhakrishna Achanta. 2023. Diffusion in style. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 2251–2261

    work page 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2022. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Junyao Gao, Yanchen Liu, Yanan Sun, Yinhao Tang, Yanhong Zeng, Kai Chen, and Cairong Zhao. 2024. Styleshot: A snapshot on any style. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01414 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM 63, 11 (2020), 139–144

    2020

  4. [12]

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. 2023. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Geoffrey E Hinton and Ruslan R Salakhutdinov. 2006. Reducing the dimension- ality of data with neural networks. science 313, 5786 (2006), 504–507

    2006

  6. [14]

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 6840–6851

    2020

  7. [15]

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

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Li Hu. 2024. Animate anyone: Consistent and controllable image-to-video syn- thesis for character animation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 8153–8163

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hsin-Ping Huang, Hung-Yu Tseng, Saurabh Saini, Maneesh Singh, and Ming- Hsuan Yang. 2021. Learning to stylize novel views. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 13869–13878

    2021

  10. [18]

    Yi Huang, Jiancheng Huang, Yifan Liu, Mingfu Yan, Jiaxi Lv, Jianzhuang Liu, Wei Xiong, He Zhang, Shifeng Chen, and Liangliang Cao. 2024. Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17525 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis

  12. [20]

    Peter Kocsis, Julien Philip, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Matthias Nießner, and Yannick Hold-Geoffroy. 2024. Lightit: Illumination modeling and control for diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9359–9369

    2024

  13. [21]

    Max Ku, Cong Wei, Weiming Ren, Huan Yang, and Wenhu Chen. 2024. Anyv2v: A plug-and-play framework for any video-to-video editing tasks. arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2403

    2024

  14. [22]

    Gihyun Kwon and Jong Chul Ye. 2022. Clipstyler: Image style transfer with a single text condition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 18062–18071

    2022

  15. [23]

    Jiahao Li, Hao Tan, Kai Zhang, Zexiang Xu, Fujun Luan, Yinghao Xu, Yicong Hong, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Sai Bi. 2023. Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view generation and large reconstruction model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06214 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Peng Li, Yuan Liu, Xiaoxiao Long, Feihu Zhang, Cheng Lin, Mengfei Li, Xingqun Qi, Shanghang Zhang, Wenhan Luo, Ping Tan, et al . 2024. Era3D: High- Resolution Multiview Diffusion using Efficient Row-wise Attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11616 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kunhao Liu, Fangneng Zhan, Yiwen Chen, Jiahui Zhang, Yingchen Yu, Abdul- motaleb El Saddik, Shijian Lu, and Eric P Xing. 2023. Stylerf: Zero-shot 3d style transfer of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ....

    2023

  18. [26]

    Kunhao Liu, Fangneng Zhan, Muyu Xu, Christian Theobalt, Ling Shao, and Shijian Lu. 2024. Stylegaussian: Instant 3d style transfer with gaussian splatting. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Technical Communications . 1–4

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tokmakov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl Vondrick. 2023. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 9298– 9309

    2023

  20. [28]

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

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. 2024. Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and P...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Haoming Lu, Hazarapet Tunanyan, Kai Wang, Shant Navasardyan, Zhangyang Wang, and Humphrey Shi. 2023. Specialist diffusion: Plug-and-play sample- efficient fine-tuning of text-to-image diffusion models to learn any unseen style. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Comp...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. 2021. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commun. ACM 65, 1 (2021), 99–106

    2021

  24. [32]

    Fangzhou Mu, Jian Wang, Yicheng Wu, and Yin Li. 2022. 3d photo stylization: Learning to generate stylized novel views from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 16273– 16282

    2022

  25. [33]

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen

  26. [34]

    James R Norris. 1998. Markov chains. Number 2. Cambridge university press

    1998

  27. [35]

    Yatian Pang, Tanghui Jia, Yujun Shi, Zhenyu Tang, Junwu Zhang, Xinhua Cheng, Xing Zhou, Francis EH Tay, and Li Yuan. 2024. Envision3D: One Image to 3D with Anchor Views Interpolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08902 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Or Patashnik, Zongze Wu, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Dani Lischinski

  29. [37]

    Pakkapon Phongthawee, Worameth Chinchuthakun, Nontaphat Sinsunthithet, Varun Jampani, Amit Raj, Pramook Khungurn, and Supasorn Suwajanakorn. 2024. Diffusionlight: Light probes for free by painting a chrome ball. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and ...

    2024

  30. [38]

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

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sand- hini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al

  32. [40]

    Amit Raj, Srinivas Kaza, Ben Poole, Michael Niemeyer, Nataniel Ruiz, Ben Milden- hall, Shiran Zada, Kfir Aberman, Michael Rubinstein, Jonathan Barron, et al

  33. [41]

    Mengwei Ren, Wei Xiong, Jae Shin Yoon, Zhixin Shu, Jianming Zhang, HyunJoon Jung, Guido Gerig, and He Zhang. 2024. Relightful Harmonization: Lighting- aware Portrait Background Replacement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ...

    2024

  34. [42]

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

  35. [43]

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolu- tional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceeding...

    2015

  36. [44]

    In International conference on machine learning

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning . PmLR, 8748–8763

  37. [45]

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural infor...

    2022

  38. [46]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Dreambooth3d: Subject-driven text-to-3d generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 2349–2359

  39. [47]

    Bingjie Song, Xin Huang, Ruting Xie, Xue Wang, and Qing Wang. 2024. Style3D: Attention-guided Multi-view Style Transfer for 3D Object Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03571 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2020. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. 2024. Lgm: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05054 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. 2023. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 22500–22510

    2023

  43. [51]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, and Hao Su. 2023. Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Haochen Wang, Xiaodan Du, Jiahao Li, Raymond A Yeh, and Greg Shakhnarovich

  46. [54]

    Weitao Wang, Haoran Xu, Yuxiao Yang, Zhifang Liu, Jun Meng, and Haoqian Wang. 2024. MVReward: Better Aligning and Evaluating Multi-View Diffusion Models with Human Preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06614 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. 2024. Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. 2023. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1921–1930

    2023

  49. [57]

    Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Wang Yifan, Hansheng Chen, Ceyuan Yang, Sida Peng, Yu- jun Shen, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2024. Grm: Large gaussian reconstruction model for efficient 3d reconstruction and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14621 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Vikram Voleti, Chun-Han Yao, Mark Boss, Adam Letts, David Pankratz, Dmitry Tochilkin, Christian Laforte, Robin Rombach, and Varun Jampani. 2024. Sv3d: Novel multi-view synthesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion. In European Conference on Compu...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2024. IC-Light GitHub Page

    2024

  52. [60]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Score jacobian chaining: Lifting pretrained 2d diffusion models for 3d generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 12619–12629

  53. [61]

    Xiaoming Zhao, Pratul P Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Keunhong Park, Ricardo Martin Brualla, and Philipp Henzler. 2024. IllumiNeRF: 3D Relighting without Inverse Rendering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06527 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Jiale Xu, Weihao Cheng, Yiming Gao, Xintao Wang, Shenghua Gao, and Ying Shan. 2024. Instantmesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07191 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision . 3836–3847

    2023

  56. [67]

    Yuxin Zhang, Nisha Huang, Fan Tang, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Weiming Dong, and Changsheng Xu. 2023. Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 10146–10156

    2023

  57. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 2085–2094

  58. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751 (2022)

    Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  59. [2023]

    3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering.ACM Trans. Graph. 42, 4 (2023), 139–1

    2023

  60. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06738 (2024)

    V3d: Video diffusion models are effective 3d generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06738 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.