Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Instant3dit: Multiview Inpainting for Fast Editing of 3D Objects

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 3D editing can be cast as multiview image inpainting, cutting edit time from hours to about three seconds.

desk verdict Solid engineering contribution for fast 3D editing, but the quality claim is only directly supported on 2D grids, not on reconstructed 3D assets. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00518 v1 pith:I6SJQIFP submitted 2024-11-30 cs.CV cs.GR

Amir Barda , Matheus Gadelha , Vladimir G. Kim , Noam Aigerman , Amit H. Bermano , Thibault Groueix This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords 3DeditingmultiviewinpaintingdiffusionmodelslargereconstructionscoredistillationsamplingmeshNeRFGaussiansplatting
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 aims to make generative 3D editing as fast and simple as 2D inpainting. Instead of running a slow optimization loop that distills a 2D diffusion prior into a 3D representation, it renders the input object and a user-drawn 3D mask into a 2x2 grid of four canonical views, inpaints those views with a multiview-consistent diffusion model, and reconstructs the edited object with an off-the-shelf large reconstruction model. If this works as claimed, editing a mesh, NeRF, or Gaussian splat takes about three seconds of diffusion time plus a short reconstruction, down from hours, while unedited regions stay intact. This matters because SDS-based editing is both slow and prone to fuzzy, inconsistent results; replacing it with a feedforward image-generation pass is a structural change to how 3D editing is done.

What carries the argument

The central object is a multiview inpainting diffusion model operating on a 2x2 grid. The grid holds four renderings of the object from canonical azimuths (0, 90, 180, 270 degrees) at a fixed elevation, with the user's 3D mask rendered into a binary mask grid. Conditioning on the color image, the mask, and a text prompt, the model inpaints the grid in one pass; a posed multiview reconstruction operator (large reconstruction model variants for NeRF, mesh, and Gaussian splat, plus an optional adaptive remeshing step) converts the inpainted grid into the edited 3D asset. The load-bearing training choice is the dataset of 3D masks: three procedural mask types (coarse convex-hull blobs, tight sculpting selections, local surface patches) mimic the edits users make, and rendering these masks along with the object keeps occlusion geometry consistent across views.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on a shape with a thin mask, such as an antenna or slender handle, with a non-white background behind the object; if the inpainted grid either drops the thin mask, turns the background white instead of generating the prompted content, or produces four views that cannot be reconstructed into one coherent shape, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 3D editing can be cast as multiview image inpainting: the edited shape is obtained by inpainting four rendered views of the object with a diffusion model trained to be simultaneously multiview-consistent and text-guided, then mapping the inpainted grid back to 3D with a large reconstruction model. The authors argue that the previous two problems of 3D inpainting—long runtimes and low quality—both stem from SDS-style optimization, and that removing the optimization removes both issues at once. The paper supports this with a benchmark of 500 held-out multiview images, ablations over diffusion backbones (fine-tuning from an inpainting-pretrained large text-to-image model works best), a mask ablation showing that 3D-consistent masks matter, generalization tests to novel camera angles, and a user study in which the method is preferred over the closest prior method in 86% of paired comparisons.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that four canonical white-background views of a masked object carry enough information for an off-the-shelf reconstruction model to produce a faithful edited shape, and that the fine-tuned diffusion model follows user-drawn masks as reliably as the three procedural mask types it was trained on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Edits complete in about three seconds for the image stage, with a few more seconds for reconstruction, removing the multi-minute-to-hours SDS optimization bottleneck.
  • The same pipeline edits meshes, NeRFs, and Gaussian splats by swapping the reconstruction operator; no per-representation training is needed.
  • Because the unedited regions stay untouched in the input renders, and with adaptive remeshing on meshes, original topology, UVs, and rigging survive the edit.
  • Training on three types of 3D masks (coarse region, sculpted volume, surface patch) transfers to arbitrary user-drawn masks, as measured by prompt adherence and consistency metrics.
  • The model generalizes to novel camera azimuths and field-of-view angles despite being fine-tuned at fixed canonical angles, due to strong conditioning from the masked image.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: Because the method treats 3D editing as 2D inpainting on a grid, it should compose with any improved multiview generator or reconstructor; a video-diffusion prior could raise consistency further, at some speed cost.
  • Editorial: The mask design may determine the method's ceiling: the reported white-background and thin-mask failures suggest that training on more diverse backgrounds and fine masks would widen the range of user edits that work reliably.
  • Editorial: A natural stress test is to measure geometric drift in the unmasked region after reconstruction; if the reconstruction is lossy, exact preservation requires the optimization-based post-processing rather than the plain feedforward path.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces Instant3dit, a method for localized generative editing of 3D assets (meshes, NeRFs, Gaussian splats) by reformulating the task as multiview image inpainting. Given a 3D mask and text prompt, the method renders four canonical views of the masked object, inpaints them with a fine-tuned diffusion model, and reconstructs the edited 3D representation with an off-the-shelf large reconstruction model (LRM). The authors propose three types of 3D-consistent training masks (coarse, sculpting, surface) and a fine-tuning strategy starting from SDXL-inpainting. Experiments compare multiview inpainting quality against SDXL, SDXL-inpainting, and Instant3D baselines, and report an informal user study against NeRFiller. The method is claimed to run in about 3 seconds per edit.

Significance. If the core claim is confirmed, this is a practically valuable contribution: it replaces SDS-style optimization that takes tens of minutes to hours with a feedforward pipeline, and the design of 3D-consistent training masks is a useful reusable recipe. The paper also contributes a benchmark and ablations that map training-mask type to downstream performance. The speed advantage is structurally credible because the pipeline uses a single diffusion pass plus a fast LRM. However, the claim of 'higher-quality results' for 3D editing is currently supported mainly by 2D-grid metrics and an informal user study, not by direct quantitative evaluation of reconstructed assets, so the significance is somewhat conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1 and Evaluation Metrics] The quantitative evaluation is entirely at the level of 2x2 multiview image grids. The SSIM/LPIPS/DreamSim numbers are obtained by reconstructing a NeRF from the inpainted grid and re-rendering to the same four camera angles, which measures self-consistency between the inpainted images and their LRM reconstruction, not the fidelity of the edited 3D shape. The abstract's claim of 'higher-quality results compared to previous works' for 3D editing therefore lacks direct support; please add evaluation on reconstructed assets (e.g., novel-view renderings, geometric and color preservation outside the mask, or a formal user study on 3D outputs).
  2. [Section 5, NeRF/GS pipelines] For NeRF and Gaussian splat editing, the method does not enforce that the reconstructed asset matches the original outside the mask: the diffusion objective inpaints only masked pixels, but the LRM (NeRF-LRM or GS-LRM) can alter the unmasked region during reconstruction. Only the mesh pipeline (with ROAR, Section 5) guarantees preservation of topology, UVs, and triangulation outside the edit. Please provide quantitative evidence of preservation for NeRF/GS outputs, or explicitly restrict the preservation claim to the mesh pipeline.
  3. [Section 5, user study] The only 3D-level comparison with a prior method is the informal user preference study against NeRFiller (15 users, 208 pairs, 86% preference), with no error bars, no per-item analysis, and no comparison to the concurrent MVInpainter. This is too weak to support the 'higher-quality' claim. Either report a formal user study with statistical significance, add a quantitative comparison on reconstructed assets, or soften the claim to 'comparable or better in informal evaluation.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1] The figure labels include '25 sec.' while the caption and abstract state '≈ 3 seconds per multiview edit'; clarify whether 25 seconds is the total mesh pipeline time (3s edit + 3s MeshLRM + 20s post-processing) or a typo.
  2. [Section 2, Related Work] The sentence 'Compared to prior work, our approach does not require an optimization to leverage the generative priorhttps://git.corp.adobe.com/pages/adobe-research/mvgenfill-client/' is broken: an internal URL is pasted into the sentence and the sentence is incomplete. Remove or fix.
  3. [Section 3.2, Type I mask] The plane equation is written as '{x in R3 | x · p = p · n}' and the face-selection condition 'v1+v2+v3/3 · p >= p · n' mixes a point with a normal; presumably the intended condition is (midpoint - p) · n >= 0. Please fix the notation.
  4. [Table 1] 'SDXL-inpaiting' is a typo for 'SDXL-inpainting' (also in Section 4 text).
  5. [Section 4, mask ablation] The 'User Generated' column in Table 2 reports ClipG on only 15 masks, and the text notes FID is not meaningful at that size; consider reporting standard errors or confidence intervals for the user-generated subset.
  6. [Section 4, generalization to novel camera angles] The inset is described qualitatively ('scores remain consistent') without reporting the actual numbers; please include the quantitative values or a plot with axis labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core pipeline is a trained feedforward model with post-hoc reconstruction; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central chain S_hat = Phi(eps_theta(Ic(S,M), Ib(M,S), y)) is not self-referential: the diffusion model is trained with Eq. (3), a standard denoising objective against ground-truth multiview renders, and the reconstructor Phi is applied only after generation. No parameter is fitted to the final 3D asset and then renamed as a prediction. Table 1 is a held-out benchmark comparing against SDXL, SDXL-inpainting and Instant3D, and the mask ablations test generalization to held-out and user masks, so the main comparison is not forced by construction. The '3D consistency' metric does round-trip generated views through NeRF-LRM and compares to the same views; that is a self-consistency measure rather than an external check, which is an evaluation limitation but does not make the output equal to the input by definition. The only overlapping-author citations (ROAR [3], Magicclay [4]) support the optional mesh post-processing application and are peer-reviewed; they are not the source of the central speed/quality claim, and no uniqueness theorem or hidden ansatz is imported. Hence there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no analytic free parameters; it rests on modeled choices: the 2x2 camera layout, mask generation hyperparameters, the training-data distribution, and the assumption that pretrained backbones and LRMs generalize. These are listed above.

free parameters (3)
  • Canonical 2x2 camera layout = azimuths {0, 90, 180, 270} at elevation pi/4
    The multiview representation is fixed to four views in a 2x2 grid; no analysis shows this is sufficient for arbitrary edits, and it is a hand-chosen design parameter.
  • Mask type hyperparameters = Type I convex hull scale 1.2; Type III cylinders 3-6, radii and heights 0.1-0.3
    These ranges are chosen to mimic user edits and are ablated only at mask-type level, not at parameter level.
  • Training configuration = 150K data points, 29 Euler steps, 10% mask dropout, fine-tuning from SDXL-inpainting
    Choice of backbone, dataset size, and sampling schedule are empirical; alternatives are ablated only coarsely (SD 1.5, SD 2.0, Instant3D, SDXL).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard latent diffusion training and sampling equations (Eq. 2 and 3) describe the denoising objective.
    Background for how epsilon_theta is trained; not questioned by the paper.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning a pretrained text-to-image inpainting model on 2x2 multiview renderings produces multiview-consistent inpainting.
    This is the central empirical assumption; validated only on synthetic Objaverse renderings.
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf LRMs (Instant3D, MeshLRM, GS-LRM) faithfully reconstruct a 3D shape from the inpainted 4-view grid and preserve unedited regions.
    Invoked throughout Section 5; no analysis of reconstruction error on the edited regions is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Training masks should mimic user masks, and the three proposed mask types cover the user edit distribution.
    Stated in Section 3.2 following Zeng et al. [55]; only 15 user masks are tested, too few to establish coverage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instant3dit: Multiview Inpainting for Fast Editing of 3D Objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6SJQIFP

@misc{pith2026241200518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instant3dit: Multiview Inpainting for Fast Editing of 3D Objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6SJQIFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00518}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a generative technique to edit 3D shapes, represented as meshes, NeRFs, or Gaussian Splats, in approximately 3 seconds, without the need for running an SDS type of optimization. Our key insight is to cast 3D editing as a multiview image inpainting problem, as this representation is generic and can be mapped back to any 3D representation using the bank of available Large Reconstruction Models. We explore different fine-tuning strategies to obtain both multiview generation and inpainting capabilities within the same diffusion model. In particular, the design of the inpainting mask is an important factor of training an inpainting model, and we propose several masking strategies to mimic the types of edits a user would perform on a 3D shape. Our approach takes 3D generative editing from hours to seconds and produces higher-quality results compared to previous works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method takes as input a 3D object along with a 3D mask (first column) and a text prompt, and uses our multiview inpainting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview. Given a NeRF, a Gaussian Splat, or a mesh, the user draws a 3D mask to mark a region to be filled and provides a text prompt to guide the generation. Instant3dit renders four canonical views of the masked object and uses our multiview inpainting network to fill the mask. We use off-the-shelf 3D reconstructors to convert the multiview representation into a NeRF, a Gaussian Splat, or a mesh. jority being ver… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multiview representation. We represent 3D shapes multiview renderings. Editing is done using an image-based diffu￾sion model that operates on Ic(S, M) and Ib(M, S). as ROAR [3], ISOMER [50] or Direct2.5d [29]. This class of methods is usually slightly slower but has the additional benefit of allowing us to carefully craft the optimization procedure in order to achieve several desirable properties like geometric regu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison to baselines. We show different inpainting results from different baselines; our multiview inpainting method offers the highest quality while maintaining consistency. fine-tuned from any image diffusion model, and thus we further evaluate how performance cha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Failure Cases. Typical failure cases include failure to adhere to the prompt for thin masks or large masks, which have little inductive bias from the unmasked area. throughout. This adaptability is crucial for inpainting, as the orientation of the unmasked portion is u…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Application: mesh editing. Each of the 3 edits shown is performed locally on the original mesh, only modifying regions selected by the user. Locality is achieved by running the ROAR [3] geometry optimization, which takes 20 extra seconds per edit. | “A cow wearing a bl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Application: texture editing. Our method can be used to modify texture on a user-selected region. In this case, we run through our NeRF editing pipeline, but only sample colors from the NeRF in the selected region. Texture Editing. The user can use our method to edit s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Hunyuan3D-Buffalo 1.0: A Unified Multimodal Model for Scalable 3D Generation, Understanding, and Editing

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified 3D multimodal model combines understanding, text-to-3D generation, instruction-guided editing, and part generation in one architecture, trained on an 87M-sample corpus, with claimed state-of-the-art results.

  2. Semantic-Guided Progressive Object Removal with Gaussian Splatting

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Semantic block matching via DINOv2 plus selective high-frequency refinement yields higher-fidelity, multi-view-consistent object removal inside 3D Gaussian Splatting than prior one-shot Gaussian or NeRF inpainters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adobe photoshop

    Adobe Inc. Adobe photoshop. 3

    work page

  2. [2]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. CVPR,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Amir Barda, Yotam Erel, Yoni Kasten, and Amit H. Bermano. Roar: Robust adaptive reconstruction of shapes using planar projections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00690,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    Kim, Noam Aigerman, Amit H

    Amir Barda, Vladimir G. Kim, Noam Aigerman, Amit H. Bermano, and Thibault Groueix. Magicclay: Sculpting meshes with generative neural fields. SIGGRAPH Asia ,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luh- man, Eric Luhman, et al. Video generation models as world simulators. https://openai.com/research/, 2024. 9

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Mvinpainter: Learning multi-view consis- tent inpainting to bridge 2d and 3d editing

    Chenjie Cao, Chaohui Yu, Yanwei Fu, Fan Wang, and Xi- angyang Xue. Mvinpainter: Learning multi-view consis- tent inpainting to bridge 2d and 3d editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08000, 2024. 1, 2, 4

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Matatlas: Text- driven consistent geometry texturing and material assign- ment

    Duygu Ceylan, Valentin Deschaintre, Thibault Groueix, Rosalie Martin, Chun-Hao Huang, Romain Rouffet, Vladimir Kim, and Ga ¨etan Lassagne. Matatlas: Text- driven consistent geometry texturing and material assign- ment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02899, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing

    Hansheng Chen, Ruoxi Shi, Yulin Liu, Bokui Shen, Ji- ayuan Gu, Gordon Wetzstein, Hao Su, and Leonidas Guibas. Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12032, 2024. 1, 2, 7

    arXiv 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation

    Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation. ICCV, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  2. [10]

    Progressive3d: Progres- sively local editing for text-to-3d content creation with com- plex semantic prompts

    Xinhua Cheng, Tianyu Yang, Jianan Wang, Yu Li, Lei Zhang, Jian Zhang, and Li Yuan. Progressive3d: Progres- sively local editing for text-to-3d content creation with com- plex semantic prompts. ICLR, 2024. 1, 2, 7

    2024

  3. [11]

    Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Ruoshi Liu, Matthew Wallingford, Huong Ngo, Oscar Michel, Aditya Kusupati, Alan Fan, Christian Laforte, Vikram V oleti, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Eli VanderBilt, Anirud- dha Kembhavi, Carl V ondrick, Georgia Gkioxari, Kiana Ehsani, Ludwig Schmidt, and Ali Farhadi. Obja...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. CVPR, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  5. [13]

    Dream- sim: Learning new dimensions of human visual similarity using synthetic data

    Stephanie Fu, Netanel Tamir, Shobhita Sundaram, Lucy Chai, Richard Zhang, Tali Dekel, and Phillip Isola. Dream- sim: Learning new dimensions of human visual similarity using synthetic data. NeurIPS, 2023. 6

    2023

  6. [14]

    Geowiz- ard: Unleashing the diffusion priors for 3d geometry estima- tion from a single image

    Xiao Fu, Wei Yin, Mu Hu, Kaixuan Wang, Yuexin Ma, Ping Tan, Shaojie Shen, Dahua Lin, and Xiaoxiao Long. Geowiz- ard: Unleashing the diffusion priors for 3d geometry estima- tion from a single image. ECCV, 2024. 8

    2024

  7. [15]

    Textdeformer: Geometry manipu- lation using text guidance

    William Gao, Noam Aigerman, Groueix Thibault, Vladimir Kim, and Rana Hanocka. Textdeformer: Geometry manipu- lation using text guidance. SIGGRAPH, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions. CVPR, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  9. [17]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.08500, 2018. 6

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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. ICLR. 3

  11. [19]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 2021. 4

    2021

  12. [20]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. NeurIPS, 2022. 4

    2022

  13. [21]

    Clip-mesh: Generating textured meshes from text using pretrained image-text models

    Nasir Mohammad Khalid, Tianhao Xie, Eugene Belilovsky, and Popa Tiberiu. Clip-mesh: Generating textured meshes from text using pretrained image-text models. SIGGRAPH Asia, 2022. 2

    2022

  14. [22]

    Kim, and Rana Hanocka

    Hyunwoo Kim, Itai Lang, Noam Aigerman, Thibault Groueix, Vladimir G. Kim, and Rana Hanocka. Meshup: Multi-target mesh deformation via blended distillation.3DV,

  15. [23]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for uni- fied vision-language understanding and generation

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for uni- fied vision-language understanding and generation. In ICLR,

  16. [24]

    Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view generation 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 generation and large reconstruction model. ICLR, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    2024

  17. [25]

    Focaldreamer: Text- driven 3d editing via focal-fusion assembly

    Yuhan Li, Yishun Dou, Yue Shi, Yu Lei, Xuanhong Chen, Yi Zhang, Peng Zhou, and Bingbing Ni. Focaldreamer: Text- driven 3d editing via focal-fusion assembly. AAAI, 2024. 2

    2024

  18. [26]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. NeurIPS, 2023. 5

    2023

  19. [27]

    Syncdreamer: Gen- erating multiview-consistent images from a single-view im- age

    Yuan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Gen- erating multiview-consistent images from a single-view im- age. ICLR, 2023. 3 9

    2023

  20. [28]

    Wonder3d: Sin- gle image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. Wonder3d: Sin- gle image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    Direct2.5: Diverse text-to-3d generation via multi-view 2.5d diffusion

    Yuanxun Lu, Jingyang Zhang, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, David McKinnon, Yanghai Tsin, Long Quan, Xun Cao, and Yao Yao. Direct2.5: Diverse text-to-3d generation via multi-view 2.5d diffusion. CVPR, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024

  22. [30]

    Score distilla- tion via reparametrized ddim

    Artem Lukoianov, Haitz S ´aez de Oc ´ariz Borde, Kristjan Greenewald, Vitor Campagnolo Guizilini, Timur Bagautdi- nov, Vincent Sitzmann, and Justin Solomon. Score distilla- tion via reparametrized ddim. NeurIPS, 2024. 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures

    Gal Metzer, Elad Richardson, Or Patashnik, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures. CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  24. [32]

    Text2mesh: Text-driven neural stylization for meshes

    Oscar Michel, Roi Bar-On, Richard Liu, Sagie Benaim, and Rana Hanocka. Text2mesh: Text-driven neural stylization for meshes. CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  25. [33]

    Sked: Sketch-guided text-based 3d editing

    Aryan Mikaeili, Or Perel, Mehdi Safaee, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Ali Mahdavi-Amiri. Sked: Sketch-guided text-based 3d editing. ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. ICLR, 2024. 6

    2024

  27. [35]

    Barron, and Ben Milden- hall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. ICLR,

  28. [36]

    Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision. ICML, 2021. 6

    2021

  29. [37]

    Texture: Text-guided texturing of 3d shapes

    Elad Richardson, Gal Metzer, Yuval Alaluf, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Texture: Text-guided texturing of 3d shapes. SIGGRAPH, 2023. 8

    2023

  30. [38]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. CVPR, 2022. 5, 6

    2022

  31. [39]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. CVPR, 2022. 3

    2022

  32. [40]

    V ox-e: Text-guided voxel editing of 3d ob- jects

    Etai Sella, Gal Fiebelman, Peter Hedman, and Hadar Averbuch-Elor. V ox-e: Text-guided voxel editing of 3d ob- jects. CVPR, 2023. 1, 2, 7

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model

    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 dif- fusion base model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110, 2023. 3

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration. ICLR, 2024. 3

    2024

  35. [43]

    Genmo Team. Mochi 1. GitHub repository, 2024. 9

    2024

  36. [44]

    Textmesh: Gen- eration of realistic 3d meshes from text prompts

    Christina Tsalicoglou, Fabian Manhardt, Alessio Tonioni, Michael Niemeyer, and Federico Tombari. Textmesh: Gen- eration of realistic 3d meshes from text prompts. 3DV, 2024. 3

    2024

  37. [45]

    Imagedream: Image-prompt multi-view diffusion for 3d generation

    Peng Wang and Yichun Shi. Imagedream: Image-prompt multi-view diffusion for 3d generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02201, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2004. 6

    2004

  39. [47]

    Crm: Single image to 3d textured mesh with convolu- tional reconstruction model

    Zhengyi Wang, Yikai Wang, Yifei Chen, Chendong Xiang, Shuo Chen, Dajiang Yu, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Crm: Single image to 3d textured mesh with convolu- tional reconstruction model. CoRR, 2024. 3

    2024

  40. [48]

    Nerfiller: Completing scenes via generative 3d inpainting

    Ethan Weber, Aleksander Holynski, Varun Jampani, Saurabh Saxena, Noah Snavely, Abhishek Kar, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfiller: Completing scenes via generative 3d inpainting. CVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  41. [49]

    Meshlrm: Large reconstruction model for high- quality mesh

    Xinyue Wei, Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Fujun Luan, Valentin Deschaintre, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Hao Su, and Zex- iang Xu. Meshlrm: Large reconstruction model for high- quality mesh. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12385, 2024. 3, 4, 8

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Unique3d: High-quality and efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image

    Kailu Wu, Fangfu Liu, Zhihan Cai, Runjie Yan, Hanyang Wang, Yating Hu, Yueqi Duan, and Kaisheng Ma. Unique3d: High-quality and efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20343, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Deep learning for im- age inpainting: A survey

    Hanyu Xiang, Qin Zou, Muhammad Ali Nawaz, Xianfeng Huang, Fan Zhang, and Hongkai Yu. Deep learning for im- age inpainting: A survey. Pattern Recognition, 2023. 3

    2023

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    Gaussiandreamer: Fast generation from text to 3d gaussians by bridging 2d and 3d diffusion models

    Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Junjie Wang, Guanjun Wu, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. Gaussiandreamer: Fast generation from text to 3d gaussians by bridging 2d and 3d diffusion models. CVPR,

  46. [54]

    Freeman, and Taesung Park

    Tianwei Yin, Michael Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, Fr´edo Durand, William T. Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. CVPR, 2024. 9

    2024

  47. [55]

    Lin, Jimei Yang, Jianming Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Huchuan Lu

    Yu Zeng, Zhe L. Lin, Jimei Yang, Jianming Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Huchuan Lu. High-resolution image in- painting with iterative confidence feedback and guided up- sampling. ECCV, 2020. 3, 5

    2020

  48. [56]

    Gs-lrm: Large recon- struction model for 3d gaussian splatting

    Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. Gs-lrm: Large recon- struction model for 3d gaussian splatting. ECCV, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 8

    2024

  49. [57]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. CVPR, 2018. 6

    2018

  50. [58]

    Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields

    Jingyu Zhuang, Chen Wang, Lingjie Liu, Liang Lin, and Guanbin Li. Dreameditor: Text-driven 3d scene editing with neural fields. SIGGRAPH Asia, 2023. 2 10

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.