arxiv: 2604.20038 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: unknown

FluSplat: Sparse-View 3D Editing without Test-Time Optimization

Haitao Huang , Shin-Fang Chng , Huangying Zhan , Qingan Yan , Yi Xu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV

keywords 3D scene editingGaussian Splattingsparse viewsfeed-forward inferencetext-guided editingcross-view consistency

0 comments

The pith

A feed-forward model enables consistent 3D scene editing from sparse views without test-time optimization.

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

The paper presents a method for text-guided 3D editing that operates in a single forward pass rather than relying on slow iterative optimization at test time. It trains the model with cross-view regularization and geometric alignment to ensure edits are consistent across different viewpoints. Once trained, edited sparse views are lifted directly into a 3D Gaussian Splatting representation. This leads to faster processing and improved consistency over previous approaches that alternate between 2D editing and 3D fitting.

Core claim

By introducing cross-view regularization in the image domain during training and jointly supervising with geometric alignment constraints, the model produces view-consistent edited images from sparse inputs. These images are then converted into a coherent 3DGS model through a feedforward process, eliminating the need for per-scene optimization at inference.

What carries the argument

Cross-view regularization scheme in the image domain combined with geometric alignment constraints that enable view-consistent multi-view edits.

If this is right

The model generates view-consistent results directly at inference without additional refinement steps.
A coherent 3D Gaussian Splatting representation is created in a single forward pass.
Editing quality is competitive with optimization-based methods.
Inference time is reduced by orders of magnitude compared to iterative approaches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This could allow for interactive 3D editing applications where quick turnaround is needed.
The method may extend to other 3D representations beyond Gaussian Splatting.
Potential to improve scalability for editing larger or more complex scenes.

Load-bearing premise

That the cross-view regularization and geometric alignment constraints learned during training will generalize to new scenes, producing consistent edits without needing any per-scene optimization.

What would settle it

If testing on unseen scenes reveals noticeable inconsistencies between edited views, such as differing textures or positions for the same object, or if the resulting 3D model shows artifacts due to misalignment, the approach would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20038 by Haitao Huang, Huangying Zhan, Qingan Yan, Shin-Fang Chng, Yi Xu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FluSplat Pipeline. Given two sparse-view input images and a textual editing instruction, we first apply a FLUX model [25] finetuned via LORA to generate crossview consistent edited images. The edited images are then processed by a transformerbased sparse-view reconstruction network [53] to obtain the edited 3DGS scene representation. The overall instruction-conditioned image-to-3D editing process is ful… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Cross-view consistent FLUX fine-tuning. A LoRA-adapted FLUX model edits two sparse views while enforcing cross-view coherence. Global Diffusion Feature Loss (GDFL) aligns intermediate diffusion features for global consistency, and Local Editing Feature Loss (LEFL) aligns CLIP-localized regions with DINOv3 features for region-level alignment. Together, these regularizations stabilize single-step editing. wh… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on DTU [1] and RE10K [56]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Cross-view 2D editing comparison on IN2N [19]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of cross-view regularization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: LoRA configuration comparison. We evaluate different rank adaptation strategies. Applying high-rank LoRA globally induces semantic drift and weaker prompt alignment, whereas low-rank adaptation restricted to deeper layers better preserves editing fidelity and maintains cross-view structural consistency. Applying LoRA globally, especially with higher ranks, introduces noticeable semantic drift and weakens… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Failure case Our method occasionally produces inconsistent edits across views. (Top) When editing the faucet color, the faucet visible in the mirror remains unedited, indicating that the model fails to propagate the edit to reflected regions. (Bottom) When transforming wooden floors into marble, the generated marble texture exhibits inconsistency across views, leading to noticeable appearance variation und… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on DTU [1] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on RE10K [56]. We compare FluSplat with DGE [11], EditSplat [26], and ViP3DE [10]. For each method, the large image and inset show two different novel views. Our method achieves more consistent object removal and fewer cross-view artifacts than prior approaches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Additional editing results on RE10K [56]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Additional editing results on ScanNet [16] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent advances in text-guided image editing and 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) have enabled high-quality 3D scene manipulation. However, existing pipelines rely on iterative edit-and-fit optimization at test time, alternating between 2D diffusion editing and 3D reconstruction. This process is computationally expensive, scene-specific, and prone to cross-view inconsistencies. We propose a feed-forward framework for cross-view consistent 3D scene editing from sparse views. Instead of enforcing consistency through iterative 3D refinement, we introduce a cross-view regularization scheme in the image domain during training. By jointly supervising multi-view edits with geometric alignment constraints, our model produces view-consistent results without per-scene optimization at inference. The edited views are then lifted into 3D via a feedforward 3DGS model, yielding a coherent 3DGS representation in a single forward pass. Experiments demonstrate competitive editing fidelity and substantially improved cross-view consistency compared to optimization-based methods, while reducing inference time by orders of magnitude.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

FluSplat shifts consistency work to training-time cross-view regularization so edits can feed straight into a 3DGS lifter, but the abstract gives almost no numbers or dataset details to check whether that actually generalizes.

read the letter

The central point here is a feed-forward pipeline that trains an editing network with image-domain cross-view regularization and geometric alignment constraints, then lifts the results directly into 3D Gaussian Splatting in one pass. This replaces the usual test-time loop of editing images and re-fitting the 3D model repeatedly. If the regularization produces sufficiently consistent multi-view outputs on new inputs, it removes the main speed and inconsistency problems in current 3D editing workflows. That is the practical advance the paper is aiming for. The approach is straightforward and directly targets the computational bottleneck that has limited adoption of these methods. The abstract frames the training supervision as explicit rather than derived from fitted parameters, which avoids the circularity that sometimes appears in optimization-heavy papers. The citation pattern follows the expected 3DGS and diffusion-editing references without obvious gaps. The soft spot is the generalization claim. The method assumes that constraints learned during training will keep edited views consistent enough for the downstream 3DGS model on arbitrary sparse-view scenes. The abstract states competitive fidelity and improved consistency but supplies no quantitative scores, no baseline tables, no ablation on the regularization terms, and no description of training scene diversity or camera setups. Without those, it is hard to judge whether the results hold beyond the training distribution. Text-guided editing networks commonly degrade on out-of-distribution geometry or lighting, which would reintroduce the very inconsistencies the method claims to solve. The stress-test note correctly flags this as the least-secured step. This paper is aimed at researchers working on practical 3D scene editing and feed-forward reconstruction. A reader looking for a new baseline idea or a way to speed up existing pipelines would get value from the framing, even if they end up re-implementing parts. It deserves peer review because the problem is real and the proposed direction is clear; referees can push for the missing quantitative evidence and robustness checks that the current description lacks.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FluSplat, a feed-forward framework for text-guided 3D scene editing from sparse views. It replaces test-time iterative optimization with a model trained using cross-view regularization and geometric alignment constraints in the image domain to produce consistent multi-view edits, which are then lifted into a coherent 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) representation via a separate feed-forward 3DGS model in a single pass. Experiments are said to show competitive editing fidelity and substantially improved cross-view consistency over optimization-based baselines, with orders-of-magnitude faster inference.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would be significant for enabling practical, scalable 3D editing pipelines by removing per-scene optimization, which is currently a major bottleneck in text-guided 3D manipulation. The feed-forward design could open applications in real-time content creation where optimization-based methods are prohibitive.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Experiments): The central claim of competitive fidelity and substantially improved cross-view consistency is asserted without any quantitative metrics, baseline comparisons, ablation studies, or error analysis provided in the abstract or referenced experiments. This absence makes it impossible to evaluate whether the data supports the feed-forward consistency claim over optimization-based methods.
[§3] §3 (Method): The cross-view regularization scheme and geometric alignment constraints are described at a high level as being applied during training to enforce consistency. However, no details are given on the specific loss formulations, how they interact with the text-guided editing network, or the diversity of training scenes/camera configurations, which directly bears on whether the regularization generalizes to unseen sparse-view inputs at inference without reintroducing inconsistencies.
[§3.2 and §4.3] §3.2 and §4.3: The assumption that training-time image-domain regularization will produce multi-view edits sufficiently consistent for the downstream feed-forward 3DGS lifter to yield a coherent 3D representation is load-bearing for the 'without test-time optimization' claim. No analysis of failure cases on out-of-distribution geometry, lighting, or novel viewpoints is presented, leaving the generalization step unsecured.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a clearer statement of the exact input (e.g., number of sparse views, text prompt format) and output (edited 3DGS parameters) to help readers quickly assess applicability.
[§3] Notation for the cross-view regularization term and the 3DGS lifter could be introduced more formally with equations to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the potential impact of a feed-forward approach for practical 3D editing. We address each major comment below and have prepared revisions to strengthen the presentation of quantitative evidence, methodological details, and generalization analysis.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Experiments): The central claim of competitive fidelity and substantially improved cross-view consistency is asserted without any quantitative metrics, baseline comparisons, ablation studies, or error analysis provided in the abstract or referenced experiments. This absence makes it impossible to evaluate whether the data supports the feed-forward consistency claim over optimization-based methods.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit reference to the quantitative results. Section 4 of the manuscript already contains tables reporting editing fidelity via FID and CLIP similarity scores, cross-view consistency via average pairwise LPIPS and depth consistency metrics, and direct comparisons against optimization-based baselines (e.g., InstructNeRF2NeRF and 3D editing variants). Ablation studies on the regularization terms are also included. We will revise the abstract to cite these specific metrics and key numerical improvements, and we will add a short error analysis paragraph in §4 summarizing failure modes observed in the quantitative results. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (Method): The cross-view regularization scheme and geometric alignment constraints are described at a high level as being applied during training to enforce consistency. However, no details are given on the specific loss formulations, how they interact with the text-guided editing network, or the diversity of training scenes/camera configurations, which directly bears on whether the regularization generalizes to unseen sparse-view inputs at inference without reintroducing inconsistencies.

Authors: We acknowledge the description in §3 was insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we will insert the precise loss equations: the cross-view consistency loss is formulated as L_cv = Σ_{i≠j} ||E_i - W_{ji}(E_j)||_1 + λ_geo · L_geom, where W denotes differentiable warping using estimated depth and E denotes the edited images; this term is added to the standard text-guided editing objective with a weighting schedule. We will also specify the training data composition (approximately 12k multi-view scenes from Objaverse and custom captures, with 4–8 views per scene and camera baselines ranging from 10° to 45°). These additions will clarify how the regularization interacts with the editing network and supports generalization. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.2 and §4.3] §3.2 and §4.3: The assumption that training-time image-domain regularization will produce multi-view edits sufficiently consistent for the downstream feed-forward 3DGS lifter to yield a coherent 3D representation is load-bearing for the 'without test-time optimization' claim. No analysis of failure cases on out-of-distribution geometry, lighting, or novel viewpoints is presented, leaving the generalization step unsecured.

Authors: We agree that an explicit discussion of generalization limits is necessary. We will expand §4.3 with a new subsection on limitations that includes qualitative examples of failure cases (e.g., severe lighting changes, thin structures, and viewpoints far from the training distribution) together with quantitative degradation curves when the number of input views drops below three or when scene geometry deviates strongly from the training set. This will better substantiate the scope of the feed-forward claim while acknowledging remaining challenges. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: feed-forward claim rests on explicit training supervision, not definitional reduction

full rationale

The paper describes a training procedure that applies cross-view regularization and geometric alignment constraints to multi-view edits, then performs inference via a separate feed-forward 3DGS lifter. No equations, parameters, or predictions are shown to reduce by construction to their own inputs. The generalization to unseen scenes is presented as an empirical outcome validated by experiments, not a tautology or self-citation chain. The provided text contains no self-citations that bear the central load, no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, and no ansatzes smuggled via prior work. This is the standard case of a self-contained learned model whose correctness is open to external falsification.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described; the method relies on standard supervised training and geometric constraints whose details are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1087 out tokens · 29547 ms · 2026-05-10T02:12:13.148541+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

International Journal of Computer Vision pp

Aanæs, H., Jensen, R.R., Vogiatzis, G., Tola, E., Dahl, A.B.: Large-scale data for multiple-view stereopsis. International Journal of Computer Vision pp. 1–16 (2016)

2016
[2]

In: CVPR (2023)

Bian, W., Wang, Z., Li, K., Bian, J.W., Prisacariu, V.A.: Nope-nerf: Optimising neural radiance field with no pose prior. In: CVPR (2023)

2023
[3]

In: The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024 (2024)

Boesel, F., Rombach, R.: Improving image editing models with generative data refinement. In: The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024 (2024)

2024
[4]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Brooks, T., Holynski, A., Efros, A.A.: Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 18392–18402 (2023)

2023
[5]

In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Cai, Q., Li, Y., Pan, Y., Yao, T., Mei, T.: Hidream-i1: An open-source high-efficient image generative foundation model. In: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 13636–13639 (2025)

2025
[6]

In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Cao, M., Wang, X., Qi, Z., Shan, Y., Qie, X., Zheng, Y.: Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 22560– 22570 (2023)

2023
[7]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Charatan,D.,Li,S.L.,Tagliasacchi,A.,Sitzmann,V.:pixelsplat:3dgaussiansplats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 19457– 19467 (2024)

2024
[8]

In: ECCV (2022)

Chen, A., Xu, Z., Geiger, A., Yu, J., Su, H.: Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In: ECCV (2022)

2022
[9]

In: ICCV (2021)

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

2021
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.23172 (2025)

Chen, L., Li, R., Zhang, G., Wang, P., Zhang, L.: Fast multi-view consistent 3d editing with video priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.23172 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

In: European conference on computer vision

Chen, M., Laina, I., Vedaldi, A.: Dge: Direct gaussian 3d editing by consis- tent multi-view editing. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 74–92. Springer (2024)

2024
[12]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Chen, M., Xie, J., Laina, I., Vedaldi, A.: Shap-editor: Instruction-guided latent 3d editing in seconds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 26456–26466 (2024)

2024
[13]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Zhang, C., Wang, F., Yang, X., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Yang, L., Liu, H., Lin, G.: Gaussianeditor: Swift and controllable 3d editing with gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 21476–21485 (2024)

2024
[14]

In: European conference on computer vision

Chen, Y., Xu, H., Zheng, C., Zhuang, B., Pollefeys, M., Geiger, A., Cham, T.J., Cai, J.: Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 370–386. Springer (2024)

2024
[15]

In: ECCV (2022)

Chng, S.F., Ramasinghe, S., Sherrah, J., Lucey, S.: Gaussian activated neural ra- diance fields for high fidelity reconstruction and pose estimation. In: ECCV (2022)

2022
[16]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Dai,A.,Chang,A.X.,Savva,M.,Halber,M.,Funkhouser,T.,Nießner,M.:Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 5828–5839 (2017)

2017
[17]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 61466–61477 (2023) 16 Huang et al

Dong, J., Wang, Y.X.: Vica-nerf: View-consistency-aware 3d editing of neural radi- ance fields. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 61466–61477 (2023) 16 Huang et al

2023
[18]

In: CVPR (2023)

Fridovich-Keil, S., Meanti, G., Warburg, F.R., Recht, B., Kanazawa, A.: K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance. In: CVPR (2023)

2023
[19]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision

Haque,A.,Tancik,M.,Efros,A.A.,Holynski,A.,Kanazawa,A.:Instruct-nerf2nerf: Editing 3d scenes with instructions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision. pp. 19740–19750 (2023)

2023
[20]

Iclr1(2), 3 (2022)

Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. Iclr1(2), 3 (2022)

2022
[21]

In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 (2024)

Huang, B., Yu, Z., Chen, A., Geiger, A., Gao, S.: 2d gaussian splatting for geo- metrically accurate radiance fields. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 (2024)

2024
[22]

ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)44(6), 1–16 (2025)

Jiang, L., Mao, Y., Xu, L., Lu, T., Ren, K., Jin, Y., Xu, X., Yu, M., Pang, J., Zhao, F., et al.: Anysplat: Feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting from unconstrained views. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)44(6), 1–16 (2025)

2025
[23]

ACM Trans

Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkühler, T., Drettakis, G., et al.: 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph.42(4), 139–1 (2023)

2023
[24]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Kulikov, V., Kleiner, M., Huberman-Spiegelglas, I., Michaeli, T.: Flowedit: Inversion-free text-based editing using pre-trained flow models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 19721–19730 (2025)

2025
[25]

FLUX.1 Kontext: Flow Matching for In-Context Image Generation and Editing in Latent Space

Labs, B.F., Batifol, S., Blattmann, A., Boesel, F., Consul, S., Diagne, C., Dock- horn, T., English, J., English, Z., Esser, P., et al.: Flux. 1 kontext: Flow match- ing for in-context image generation and editing in latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15742 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[26]

In: Proceedings of the Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Lee, D.I., Park, H., Seo, J., Park, E., Park, H., Baek, H.D., Shin, S., Kim, S., Kim, S.: Editsplat: Multi-view fusion and attention-guided optimization for view- consistent 3d scene editing with 3d gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 11135–11145 (2025)

2025
[27]

Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

Leroy, V., Cabon, Y., Revaud, J.: Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09756 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12624 (2023)

Li, T., Ku, M., Wei, C., Chen, W.: Dreamedit: Subject-driven image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12624 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[29]

In: ICCV (2021)

Lin, C.H., Ma, W.C., Torralba, A., Lucey, S.: Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radi- ance fields. In: ICCV (2021)

2021
[30]

SDEdit: Guided Image Synthesis and Editing with Stochastic Differential Equations

Meng, C., He, Y., Song, Y., Song, J., Wu, J., Zhu, J.Y., Ermon, S.: Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073 (2021)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[31]

Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

2021
[32]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Mirzaei, A., Aumentado-Armstrong, T., Brubaker, M.A., Kelly, J., Levinshtein, A., Derpanis, K.G., Gilitschenski, I.: Watch your steps: Local image and scene editing by text instructions. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 111–129. Springer (2024)

2024
[33]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Mokady, R., Hertz, A., Aberman, K., Pritch, Y., Cohen-Or, D.: Null-text inver- sion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 6038–6047 (2023)

2023
[34]

DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[35]

In: International conference on machine learning

Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from FluSplat 17 natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 8748–8763. PmLR (2021)

2021
[36]

Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents

Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C., Chen, M.: Hierarchical text- conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 1(2), 3 (2022)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[37]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

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

2022
[38]

Semantic im- age inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differen- tial equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10792, 2024

Rout, L., Chen, Y., Ruiz, N., Caramanis, C., Shakkottai, S., Chu, W.S.: Semantic image inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10792 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[39]

Advances in neural information processing systems35, 36479–36494 (2022)

Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E.L., Ghasemipour, K., Gontijo Lopes, R., Karagol Ayan, B., Salimans, T., et al.: Photorealistic text- to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 36479–36494 (2022)

2022
[40]

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

Sheynin, S., Polyak, A., Singer, U., Kirstain, Y., Zohar, A., Ashual, O., Parikh, D., Taigman, Y.: Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and generation tasks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8871–8879 (2024)

2024
[41]

Siméoni, O., Vo, H.V., Seitzer, M., Baldassarre, F., Oquab, M., Jose, C., Khalidov, V., Szafraniec, M., Yi, S., Ramamonjisoa, M., Massa, F., Haziza, D., Wehrstedt, L., Wang, J., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Sentana, L., Roberts, C., Vedaldi, A., Tolan, J., Brandt, J., Couprie, C., Mairal, J., Jégou, H., Labatut, P., Bojanowski, P.: DINOv3 (2025),https://ar...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[42]

Splatt3r: Zero-shot gaussian splatting from uncalibrated image pairs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13912, 2024

Smart, B., Zheng, C., Laina, I., Prisacariu, V.A.: Splatt3r: Zero-shot gaussian splatting from uncalibrated image pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13912 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

Advances in neural information processing systems36, 1363– 1389 (2023)

Tang, L., Jia, M., Wang, Q., Phoo, C.P., Hariharan, B.: Emergent correspondence from image diffusion. Advances in neural information processing systems36, 1363– 1389 (2023)

2023
[44]

Vachha, C., Haque, A.: Instruct-gs2gs: Editing 3d gaussian splats with instructions (2024),https://instruct-gs2gs.github.io/

2024
[45]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04746 , year=

Wang, J., Pu, J., Qi, Z., Guo, J., Ma, Y., Huang, N., Chen, Y., Li, X., Shan, Y.: Taming rectified flow for inversion and editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04746 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[46]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Wang, S., Leroy, V., Cabon, Y., Chidlovskii, B., Revaud, J.: Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 20697–20709 (2024)

2024
[47]

Wang, Z., Wu, S., Xie, W., Chen, M., Prisacariu, V.A.: Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters (2021)

2021
[48]

In: European conference on computer vision

Wu, J., Bian, J.W., Li, X., Wang, G., Reid, I., Torr, P., Prisacariu, V.A.: Gauss- ctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting editing. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 55–71. Springer (2024)

2024
[49]

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

Xiao, S., Wang, Y., Zhou, J., Yuan, H., Xing, X., Yan, R., Li, C., Wang, S., Huang, T., Liu, Z.: Omnigen: Unified image generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 13294–13304 (2025)

2025
[50]

In: CVPR (2024)

Xu, H., Chen, A., Chen, Y., Sakaridis, C., Zhang, Y., Pollefeys, M., Geiger, A., Yu, F.: Murf: Multi-baseline radiance fields. In: CVPR (2024)

2024
[51]

In: CVPR (2025) 18 Huang et al

Xu, H., Peng, S., Wang, F., Blum, H., Barath, D., Geiger, A., Pollefeys, M.: Depth- splat: Connecting gaussian splatting and depth. In: CVPR (2025) 18 Huang et al

2025
[52]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(11), 13941–13958 (2023)

Xu, H., Zhang, J., Cai, J., Rezatofighi, H., Yu, F., Tao, D., Geiger, A.: Unifying flow, stereo and depth estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(11), 13941–13958 (2023)

2023
[53]

In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

Ye, B., Liu, S., Xu, H., Li, X., Pollefeys, M., Yang, M.H., Peng, S.: No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images. In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations
[54]

Zhang, Z., Xie, J., Lu, Y., Yang, Z., Yang, Y.: Enabling instructional image editing within-contextgenerationinlargescalediffusiontransformer.In:TheThirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2025)

2025
[55]

Tinker: Diffusion's gift to 3d---multi-view consistent editing from sparse inputs without per-scene optimization

Zhao, C., Li, X., Feng, T., Zhao, Z., Chen, H., Shen, C.: Tinker: Diffusion’s gift to 3d–multi-view consistent editing from sparse inputs without per-scene optimiza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14811 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

ACM Trans

Zhou, T., Tucker, R., Flynn, J., Fyffe, G., Snavely, N.: Stereo magnification: learning view synthesis using multiplane images. ACM Trans. Graph.37(4) (Jul 2018).https://doi.org/10.1145/3197517.3201323,https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3197517.3201323 FluSplat 1 FluSplat: Sparse-View 3D Editing without Test-Time Optimization Supplementary Material 6 Overview This ...

work page doi:10.1145/3197517.3201323 2018