Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Zero-1-to-G: Taming Pretrained 2D Diffusion Model for Direct 3D 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 Zero-1-to-G generates a full 3D Gaussian-splat model directly from one image, by decomposing splats into multi-view attribute images and fine-tuning a pretrained 2D diffusion model to draw them.

desk verdict A promising direction—decomposing Gaussian splats into 2D attribute images to reuse pretrained 2D diffusion—but the training-label proxy needs quantification before the reported gains are convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05427 v1 pith:524ZXOZY submitted 2025-01-09 cs.CV

Xuyi Meng , Chen Wang , Jiahui Lei , Kostas Daniilidis , Jiatao Gu , Lingjie Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords direct3DgenerationGaussiansplattingdiffusionmodelssingle-imagetomulti-viewcross-viewattentionsplatterimagelatent
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

The paper claims that direct single-image-to-3D generation can be recast as a 2D image diffusion problem without losing 3D consistency. A Gaussian splat, whose per-pixel attributes normally fill 14 channels, is decomposed into five 3-channel attribute images (color, position, scale, rotation, opacity) across six camera views, and a pretrained Stable Diffusion UNet is fine-tuned to generate these splatter images jointly. The result is an image-to-3D generator that trains in about three days on eight GPUs, runs in 8.7 seconds per object at inference, and reports higher PSNR and SSIM, lower LPIPS, and lower Chamfer distance than the reconstruction-based, two-stage, and direct-3D baselines compared on the GSO benchmark. If correct, it shows that the rich priors of 2D diffusion models can be transferred to direct 3D generation, improving generalization to in-the-wild images without training a 3D diffusion model from scratch.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the splatter image: a regular $H\times W$ grid in which each pixel encodes one 3D Gaussian, normally with 14 channels of attributes. The paper's transformation maps RGB, position, log-compressed scale, quaternion-to-axis-angle rotation, and duplicated opacity into five ordinary 3-channel RGB images, making each attribute compatible with the latent space of a pretrained VAE. The consistency argument is carried by two extra self-attention modules inserted into the Stable Diffusion UNet--multi-view attention over the same attribute across views and multi-attribute attention over different attributes within one view--so the denoiser processes the whole view-attribute array. A decoder fine-tuning stage with rendering losses (splatter reconstruction plus MSE and LPIPS on RGB renderings, normals, and masks) closes the domain gap between natural images and splatter images, because a small pixel error in splatter space can become a large rendering artifact when each pixel is a Gaussian.

What would settle it

Train Zero-1-to-G twice on the same data--once with LGM-produced splatter labels and once with per-scene fitted splatters--and compare the resulting models on the GSO rendering and geometry metrics; if the LGM-supervised model fails to match the fitted-splatter model, the central claim that the method learns the true 3D distribution is refuted, since its quality ceiling is set by the proxy labels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a Gaussian splat can be rearranged into a set of multi-view splatter images--one per camera view and attribute--so the joint distribution of a full 3D object becomes a joint distribution over 6 views and 5 attribute images. By inserting cross-view and cross-attribute self-attention layers into a pretrained 2D diffusion UNet and fine-tuning them together with the VAE decoder, the model learns to denoise a coherent array of attribute images that fuse directly into a Gaussian-splat representation. This makes the generation single-stage: there is no separate multi-view prediction followed by reconstruction, and the paper reports that this arrangement outperforms the tested baselines on GSO's rendering and geometry metrics while generalizing to in-the-wild photographs, including inputs with backgrounds.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion model is trained to reproduce splatters produced by a fine-tuned reconstruction network, not the true per-object fitted Gaussian splats; if those proxy splatters are biased, over-smoothed, or missing detail, the generated 3D objects cannot be better than that proxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because generation is single-stage, the strict pixel-level consistency required by two-stage multi-view-to-reconstruction pipelines is not needed; the paper attributes fewer floaters and sharper renderings to this property.
  • The method trains in about three days on eight GPUs, far less than the compared direct-3D and two-stage systems, because it starts from a pretrained 2D diffusion UNet rather than training a 3D diffusion model from scratch.
  • Inference takes about 8.7 seconds per object on a single GPU, and because the denoiser is generative, the same input image can yield multiple plausible 3D interpretations rather than a single regression output.
  • Because all 3D information is carried by 2D attribute images, future advances in 2D diffusion--better decoders, faster samplers, distillation--could be adopted directly into direct 3D generation without changing the 3D representation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is whether the same decomposition works for other per-pixel 3D representations, such as triplanes or multi-plane images; success would suggest the key ingredient is the 2D-compatible attribute layout rather than Gaussian splats specifically.
  • Because the training labels are splatters produced by a fine-tuned reconstruction network rather than per-scene fitted splatters, the method's quality ceiling is set by that proxy; a benchmark comparing the two label sources would quantify how much this assumption costs.
  • The fixed six-view, fixed-elevation design could be relaxed to variable numbers of views or free camera poses, which would test whether the cross-view attention architecture generalizes beyond the current grid and improves coverage on complex objects.
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 introduces Zero-1-to-G, a diffusion-based model that generates Gaussian splats directly from a single RGB image. The method decomposes each object into multi-view 'splatter images' composed of five 3-channel attribute maps (RGB color, position, scale, rotation, opacity) and fine-tunes a Stable Diffusion Image Variations model with additional cross-view and cross-attribute attention layers to generate these attribute maps jointly. A VAE decoder is fine-tuned with rendering losses to improve splat reconstruction. Training targets are not produced by per-object fitting but by a fine-tuned LGM reconstruction network applied to G-Objaverse renderings. Experiments on 30 GSO objects report improved PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and Chamfer Distance over several baselines, with additional qualitative results on in-the-wild images.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable step: it shows that a pretrained 2D diffusion model can be adapted to generate a 3D representation directly, avoiding per-scene optimization and reducing training cost relative to from-scratch direct 3D diffusion. The decomposition of Gaussian splats into attribute images is a useful insight, and the ablations (w/o decoder fine-tuning, w/o cross-attribute attention, w/o diffusion prior) demonstrate that each component contributes. The paper's main claims, however, rest on the fidelity of the learned labels and on a small, single-subset evaluation; both need strengthening before the quantitative gains can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The training labels are not true Gaussian splats but outputs of a fine-tuned LGM reconstruction network. This is a load-bearing premise: the diffusion model is trained to reproduce the distribution of LGM reconstructions, so any systematic bias in LGM (e.g., over-smoothing, missing high-frequency detail, hallucinated geometry) will be inherited. The argument in the text that 'we train and infer the network with the same set of data' addresses generalization but not bias. Please add a quantitative validation of the fine-tuned LGM splatters against independent ground truth (e.g., fitting-based splatters or held-out multi-view renderings), reporting metrics such as PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and Chamfer Distance, and discuss how the label generator's errors propagate to the diffusion model. Without this, the gains in Table 1 could be attributable to characteristics of the label generator rather than to the proposed use of 2D diffusion priors.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 / Table 1] The quantitative comparison is based on 30 GSO objects with no error bars, confidence intervals, or per-object breakdown. The improvements over the closest baseline (InstantMesh) are modest (e.g., PSNR 19.40 vs 18.15; SSIM 0.818 vs 0.810), and without variance estimates it is unclear whether these differences are significant. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple random subsets of GSO and over multiple generative sampling runs (seeds). Also clarify how Chamfer Distance is computed: whether GT meshes or scans are used, and how sampling density and alignment are handled.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (5)-(6)] As written, the reverse process and loss are unconditional: the noise predictor is written as epsilon_theta(z_t, t) and the expectation in Eq. (6) does not include the conditional image y. Since the method is explicitly a conditional image-to-3D model, this notation obscures the central conditioning mechanism. Please rewrite the equations to include the conditioning image y in the noise predictor and in the expectation, and state how y is injected into the UNet (e.g., cross-attention, concatenation). This is necessary for reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. 4.4 / Table 3] The ablation study does not isolate the contribution of the multi-view attention layers. The reader cannot tell whether the 3D consistency of the outputs comes from the cross-view attention or from the shared 2D diffusion prior and the decomposition itself. Please add an ablation that removes the cross-view attention modules (while keeping cross-attribute attention) and report the corresponding metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equations (2)-(6)] The paper uses both z and x for the same data (e.g., z for splatters, but x in the expectation of Eq. (6)); please unify the notation and define all variables.
  2. [Table 3] The header 'Abalation' should be 'Ablation'.
  3. [Title and running header] There are odd spacing artifacts in 'ZERO-1- TO-G' and 'T AMING'; please correct these typos.
  4. [Sec. 2] In the related-work paragraph, 'MVDream (Shi et al., 2023b) aintegrates' contains a typo; it should read 'integrates'.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The decoder fine-tuning loss L_decoder = L_splatter + L_normal + L_rgb + L_mask is described verbally, but L_splatter and L_mask are not defined with equations; please provide explicit definitions for these terms.
  6. [Sec. 4.1] The sentence 'The second stage of training takes about 2 days' appears twice in the same paragraph; please remove the duplication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: training labels are an LGM-generated proxy, but the central claim is tested against external GSO renderings and no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The diffusion model is trained on splatter images produced by a fine-tuned LGM reconstruction module (Sec. 3.1), which is a proxy label generator rather than an independent ground truth; however, this is a training-data provenance and fidelity concern, not a circularity. The final evaluation on GSO (Table 1) compares rendered outputs against real ground-truth renderings using PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and Chamfer Distance, so the reported improvements are not forced by the LGM-generated training distribution. The core method—decomposing Gaussian splats into multi-view attribute images, inserting cross-view and cross-attribute attention into a pretrained Stable Diffusion UNet, and fine-tuning the VAE decoder with splatter and rendering losses—does not define its outputs in terms of its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-references (e.g., GECO, LN3Diff, Single-Stage Diffusion NeRF) appear only as baselines or related work and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The statement that training and inference on the same data means the method is 'not inherently bounded by LGM' is logically weak, but it does not amount to a circular reduction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citations. Overall, the paper's central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The method leans on the splatter image representation, the pretrained Stable Diffusion prior, and a network-generated training target. The first two are external, the last is a learned proxy introduced for this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Scale log-space clamp = -10
    In Appendix A.1, raw Gaussian scales are converted to log space and clamped at -10 because smaller scales are negligible. This is a hand-chosen threshold that affects the splatter image distribution.
  • Number of views = 6
    The paper fixes 6 camera views (input plus 5 at 30, 90, 180, 270, 330 degrees). This is a design choice for the joint distribution; more views might improve quality but increase computation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian splats can be arranged as a Splatter Image and decomposed into attribute images without loss of 3D information.
    Taken from Szymanowicz et al. 2023; the paper relies on this to reframe 3D generation as 2D image generation.
  • domain assumption The distribution of splatter attribute images is compatible with the latent space of a pretrained Stable Diffusion VAE after decoder fine-tuning.
    The paper observes this empirically and fine-tunes the decoder to close the gap; if the latent space were fundamentally incompatible, the approach would fail.
  • ad hoc to paper The splatters produced by the fine-tuned LGM network are adequate ground truths for training a generative model.
    Introduced in Sec 3.1; the paper chooses network-generated splatters over fitting-based ones because they are smoother, but this substitutes a learned proxy for true ground truth.
  • standard math Standard diffusion theory (DDPM) applies to the joint distribution of multi-view and multi-attribute latent splatter images.
    The forward and reverse processes in Sec 3.2 follow Ho et al. 2020 without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-1-to-G: Taming Pretrained 2D Diffusion Model for Direct 3D Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/524ZXOZY

@misc{pith2026250105427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-1-to-G: Taming Pretrained 2D Diffusion Model for Direct 3D Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/524ZXOZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05427}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in 2D image generation have achieved remarkable quality,largely driven by the capacity of diffusion models and the availability of large-scale datasets. However, direct 3D generation is still constrained by the scarcity and lower fidelity of 3D datasets. In this paper, we introduce Zero-1-to-G, a novel approach that addresses this problem by enabling direct single-view generation on Gaussian splats using pretrained 2D diffusion models. Our key insight is that Gaussian splats, a 3D representation, can be decomposed into multi-view images encoding different attributes. This reframes the challenging task of direct 3D generation within a 2D diffusion framework, allowing us to leverage the rich priors of pretrained 2D diffusion models. To incorporate 3D awareness, we introduce cross-view and cross-attribute attention layers, which capture complex correlations and enforce 3D consistency across generated splats. This makes Zero-1-to-G the first direct image-to-3D generative model to effectively utilize pretrained 2D diffusion priors, enabling efficient training and improved generalization to unseen objects. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and in-the-wild datasets demonstrate superior performance in 3D object generation, offering a new approach to high-quality 3D generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Zero-1-to-G tackles direct Gaussian splat generation from single images. By using pretrained 2D diffusion models, we are able to generalize to in-the-wild objects. ABSTRACT Recent advances in 2D image generation have achieved remarkable quality, largely driven by the capacity of diffusion models and the availability of large￾scale datasets. However, direct 3D generation is still constrained by the scarcity and lower… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of Zero-1-to-G. During training, we fine-tune both the VAE decoder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison between rendering results from splatters acquire through fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VAE encoding and decoding comparison with per-scene optimized splatters and feed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RGB and normal renderings of more examples on MVImgNet dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison with, LGM, InstantMesh, LN3Diff on in-the-wild data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation study on GSO dataset. 4.4 ABLATION STUDY VAE Decoder Finetuning Without fine-tuning VAE decoder, although the decoded splatter image visually looks fine, the renderings exhibit noticeable artifacts. Since each pixel represents a Gaussian splat and the decoder …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Splatter visualization of ablation study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RGB and normal renderings of more examples on in-the-wild and GSO datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Generative 3D model with various geometry and texture given the same condition image, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AdaptiveSplat:Texture Aware Controllable 3D Gaussian Allocation for Feed-Forward Reconstruction

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Texture-aware SuperCluster pruning plus an adaptive Gaussian head lets feed-forward 3DGS models hit a user budget β while outperforming post-hoc pruners on RE10K, ACID, DL3DV and DTU.

  2. PixGS: Pixel-Space Diffusion for Direct 3D Gaussian Splat Generation

    cs.CV 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PixGS is a single-stage pixel-space diffusion model that directly produces high-quality 3D Gaussian Splats from text or images in ~1s, outperforming multi-stage latent methods on standard benchmarks.

  3. Rectifying Mask via Entropy for Distractor-Free 3DGS in Ambiguous Scenarios

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    RefineSplat removes ambiguous distractors from 3DGS via entropy-aware adaptive masking and density control, releasing an 18-scene Ambiguous wild dataset and reporting SOTA metrics on multiple wild benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    Geowizard: Unleashing the diffusion priors for 3d geometry estimation from a single image

    Xiao Fu, Wei Yin, Mu Hu, Kaixuan Wang, Yuexin Ma, Ping Tan, Shaojie Shen, Dahua Lin, and Xiaoxiao Long. Geowizard: Unleashing the diffusion priors for 3d geometry estimation from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12013,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    Cat3d: Create anything in 3d with multi-view diffusion models

    Ruiqi Gao, Aleksander Holynski, Philipp Henzler, Arthur Brussee, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Pratul Srinivasan, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Poole. Cat3d: Create anything in 3d with multi-view diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10314,

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    Gvgen: Text-to-3d generation with volumetric representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12957,

    Xianglong He, Junyi Chen, Sida Peng, Di Huang, Yangguang Li, Xiaoshui Huang, Chun Yuan, Wanli Ouyang, and Tong He. Gvgen: Text-to-3d generation with volumetric representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12957,

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d

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

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , pp. 1–11,

    work page 2024

  6. [10]

    Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions

    Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463,

    arXiv

  7. [11]

    Repurposing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation

    Bingxin Ke, Anton Obukhov, Shengyu Huang, Nando Metzger, Rodrigo Caye Daudt, and Konrad Schindler. Repurposing diffusion-based image generators for monocular depth estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02145,

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Ln3diff: Scalable latent neural fields diffusion for speedy 3d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12019,

    Yushi Lan, Fangzhou Hong, Shuai Yang, Shangchen Zhou, Xuyi Meng, Bo Dai, Xingang Pan, and Chen Change Loy. Ln3diff: Scalable latent neural fields diffusion for speedy 3d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12019,

    arXiv

Show all 31 references
  1. [13]

    Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view gen- eration and large reconstruction model

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

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Part123: Part-aware 3d reconstruction from a single-view image

    Anran Liu, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Xiaoxiao Long, Zhiyang Dou, Hao-Xiang Guo, Ping Luo, and Wenping Wang. Part123: Part-aware 3d reconstruction from a single-view image. In ACM SIG- GRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pp. 1–12,

    2024

  3. [15]

    One-2-3-45++: Fast single image to 3d objects with consistent multi-view generation and 3d diffusion

    12 Minghua Liu, Ruoxi Shi, Linghao Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Hansheng Chen, Chong Zeng, Jiayuan Gu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45++: Fast single image to 3d objects with consistent multi-view generation and 3d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07885, 2023a. Ruoshi...

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751,

    arXiv

  5. [17]

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

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

    arXiv

  6. [18]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model, 2023a

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, and Hao Su. Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model, 2023a. Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Mu...

    arXiv

  7. [19]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01469,

    arXiv

  8. [20]

    Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation

    Jiaxiang Tang, Jiawei Ren, Hang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Gang Zeng. Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16653,

    arXiv

  9. [21]

    Lgm: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation

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

    arXiv

  10. [22]

    Triposr: Fast 3d object reconstruction from a single image

    13 Dmitry Tochilkin, David Pankratz, Zexiang Liu, Zixuan Huang, Adam Letts, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang, Christian Laforte, Varun Jampani, and Yan-Pei Cao. Triposr: Fast 3d object reconstruction from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02151,

    arXiv

  11. [23]

    Geco: Generative image-to-3d within a second

    Chen Wang, Jiatao Gu, Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan Liu, and Lingjie Liu. Geco: Generative image-to-3d within a second. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20327,

    arXiv

  12. [24]

    Prolific- dreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Prolific- dreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16213,

    arXiv

  13. [25]

    Instantmesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models

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

    arXiv

  14. [26]

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

    Yinghao Xu, Hao Tan, Fujun Luan, Sai Bi, Peng Wang, Jiahao Li, Zifan Shi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Gordon Wetzstein, Zexiang Xu, et al. Dmv3d: Denoising multi-view diffusion using 3d large reconstruction model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09217,

    arXiv

  15. [27]

    An object is worth 64x64 pixels: Generating 3d object via image diffusion

    Xingguang Yan, Han-Hung Lee, Ziyu Wan, and Angel X Chang. An object is worth 64x64 pixels: Generating 3d object via image diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03178,

    arXiv

  16. [28]

    3dshape2vecset: A 3d shape rep- resentation for neural fields and generative diffusion models

    Biao Zhang, Jiapeng Tang, Matthias Niessner, and Peter Wonka. 3dshape2vecset: A 3d shape rep- resentation for neural fields and generative diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11445, 2023a. Bowen Zhang, Yiji Cheng, Jiaolong Yang, Chunyu Wang, Feng Zhao, Yansong Tang, Do...

    arXiv

  17. [31]

    The training objective is to compare the splatter renderings with ground truth images using MSE and LPIPS loss

    to take as input 6 multi-view renderings of the G-Objaverse dataset and output splatter images of 2D Gaussian splatting (Huang et al., 2024). The training objective is to compare the splatter renderings with ground truth images using MSE and LPIPS loss. We also use cosine simi...

    2024

  18. [2018]

    Michelangelo: Conditional 3d shape generation based on shape-image-text aligned latent representation

    Zibo Zhao, Wen Liu, Xin Chen, Xianfang Zeng, Rui Wang, Pei Cheng, Bin Fu, Tao Chen, Gang Yu, and Shenghua Gao. Michelangelo: Conditional 3d shape generation based on shape-image-text aligned latent representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17115,

    arXiv

  19. [2020]

    3dtopia: Large text-to-3d generation model with hybrid diffusion priors

    Fangzhou Hong, Jiaxiang Tang, Ziang Cao, Min Shi, Tong Wu, Zhaoxi Chen, Tengfei Wang, Liang Pan, Dahua Lin, and Ziwei Liu. 3dtopia: Large text-to-3d generation model with hybrid diffusion priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02234,

    arXiv

  20. [2021]

    Triplane meets gaussian splatting: Fast and generalizable single-view 3d reconstruction with transformers

    Zi-Xin Zou, Zhipeng Yu, Yuan-Chen Guo, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang, Yan-Pei Cao, and Song-Hai Zhang. Triplane meets gaussian splatting: Fast and generalizable single-view 3d reconstruction with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09147,

    arXiv

  21. [2022]

    Geometry image diffusion: Fast and data-efficient text-to-3d with image-based surface representation

    Slava Elizarov, Ciara Rowles, and Simon Donn´e. Geometry image diffusion: Fast and data-efficient text-to-3d with image-based surface representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03718,

    arXiv

  22. [2023]

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

    Hansheng Chen, Jiatao Gu, Anpei Chen, Wei Tian, Zhuowen Tu, Lingjie Liu, and Hao Su. Single- stage diffusion nerf: A unified approach to 3d generation and reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06714, 2023a. Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fantasia3d: Dis...

    arXiv

  23. [2024]

    Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items

    Laura Downs, Anthony Francis, Nate Koenig, Brandon Kinman, Ryan Hickman, Krista Reymann, Thomas B McHugh, and Vincent Vanhoucke. Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp...

    2022

Pith tools

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